Convictions in Murder Trials

Murder Without a Body Murder cases are perhaps the most noteworthy criminal prosecution cases regularly tried. They are indicative of the state of society and its larger problems. Therefore, it is always of extreme interest when there are murder cases in which there is no body found. The implications for these situations are obvious: if there is no dead body, is it truly fair to convict someone of having committed murder? In numerous instances, the answer to that question is a resounding yes.

One of the most determining factors in convicting someone of murder without a body is circumstantial evidence. In the case of People v. Garcia, circumstantial evidence proved the deciding factor in convicting Mario Flavio Garcia of murder in the first degree in which it was found that he killed Christie Wilson. Although Wilson's body was never recovered, there was a bevy of evidence that suggested that Garcia had either killed Wilson or had intimate knowledge of her demise.

The last time that Wilson was ever seen was leaving a casino with Garcia early in the morning. The pair had been drinking and gambling together for several hours. All of these facts were readily corroborated by the casino's cameras. Additional circumstantial evidence pertains to forensics. Lab work determined that there were strands of Wilson's hair found in Garcia's car. Similarly, there was blood attributed to Wilson found in Garcia's vehicle as well.

This combination of factors figured rather prominently in the initial conviction of Garcia, and in a judge's decision to uphold the conviction in 2009. The case was originally tried much earlier and relatively close to the 2005 arrest of Garcia. The impact of circumstantial evidence on this particular case is difficult to deny. In addition to the foregoing evidence, there was other evidence that played a significant role in the conviction of Garcia.

It was determined that Garcia had a weapon in the car during the time in which it was alleged that Wilson was present. It is necessary to mention that in addition to murder, Garcia was also convicted of being in possession of a weapon that is illegal to have in one's personal vehicle. Additional circumstantial evidence includes the fact that Garcia was a felon. He was convicted of a felony for abusing a former girlfriend.

This fact was used in the trial to indicate that Garcia had already demonstrated a marked proclivity for violence, particularly against women. The weapon that he was in possession of was a "collapsible baton" (Ofgang). All of this circumstantial evidence was further buttressed by the fact that Garcia was bruised when police initially went to question him. This fact was significant because it was later on demonstrated in court that Wilson "had been trained to defend herself by her stepfather, a San Jose police veteran" (Ofgang).

All of this evidence helped to portray the fact that Garcia had taken Wilson into his vehicle after becoming intoxicated with her in the Casino. It also insinuates that he pummeled her with his collapsible baton while she attempted to defend herself and managed to injure him. It is also important to realize exactly how potent circumstantial evidence can be in the absence of a murder weapon.

Garcia's defense was not ideal, but it helped to emphasize the fact that circumstantial evidence was what was largely attributed to the degree of culpability that a jury of his peers was able to find. Both during initial questioning with police and during his trial, Garcia claimed that after leaving the Casino with Wilson she allegedly returned to it -- supposedly to retrieve a mobile communication device. However, there was no Casino footage of her returning to the Casino, and she was never seen after exiting with Garcia.

Moreover, Garcia claimed that he went home alone that same night. However, the behavior he exhibited at the police station may not have aided his defense as well as he would have liked it to, either. He voluntarily terminated the question and answer session he had with authorities when a police officer asked to photograph the bruise on his face. The officer still attempted to photograph it anyway (Ofgang).

Other aspects of Garcia's defense included the fact that there was a witness who claimed to see a drunken woman the same early morning that Wilson had left the casino with Garcia. The witness claimed to see the woman, whom the witness felt fairly certain was Wilson, approximately 20 to 30 miles from the casino (Ofgang). Although Garcia's defense may not have been ideal, it was bolstered in part by the fact that Wilson's body was never recovered.

Nonetheless, Garcia was convicted of murder largely on the strength of the abundance of circumstantial evidence that worked against his favor. This evidence,.