By Catherine Potente, Katherine Longjohn and Darling Gonzalez
INDIO, CA – Jury deliberations began Thursday after closing arguments Wednesday at the Larson Justice Center/Riverside County Superior Court in the murder trial of Jose Vladimir Larin-Garcia for the Feb. 3, 2019, fatal shooting of four victims.
The trial will have spanned parts of five months by March 1—the first hearings began in mid-November—as Judge Anthony Villalobos announced that even if the jury came back with a verdict sooner, he wouldn’t announce the verdict before going into the penalty phase of deliberations.
In this 2019 quadruple homicide, three of the four victims were shot and killed inside of a Toyota Corolla, with Larin-Garcia alleged to be the fourth passenger in the backseat at the time of killing.
Deputy District Attorney Samantha Paixao resumed her closing arguments this week by saying that there is “no evidence to suggest there was a third person in the backseat of the car… no evidence of anybody ever seeing a third person get out of that car.”
DDA Paixao continued by referencing how the defense’s expert testimony, reenacting the crime scene on whether or not a third person might have been in the car, was not credible.
“He had the opportunity to put three adults in the backseat of that car. He had the opportunity to put people akin to sizes we were dealing with in the backseat of that car and he chose not to,” said DDA Paixao.
Instead, DDA Paixao pointed out that the stand-in used for Larin-Garcia in the reenactment weighed just 189 pounds, whereas Larin-Garcia weighed 310 pounds. Furthermore, in place of the victim in the backseat, the reenactment just used a mannequin head.
It also came to light in cross-examination the defense expert used one percent milk with red dye for blood, about which DDA Paixao said “it does not take a scientific expert to know that one percent milk with red dye is not the same as blood.”
DDA Paixao continued, “Never once did Mr. Beasley provide any information based upon evidence for us to allow the consideration that there was a third person in the backseat of that car,” said DDA Paixao.
In reference to whether someone could have been in the middle seat of the car, DDA Paixao turned to blood spatter evidence stating that “the blood spatter was high impact,” which “shows us that there wasn’t somebody in the middle seat of the vehicle.”
Defense had asserted that John Olvera, not Larin-Garcia, was actually the one who committed the murder from the back middle seat of the vehicle.
However, DDA Paixao further stated how the only passengers present in the car were the three of the victims and Larin-Garcia, and specifically mentioned the Perkins operation (an undercover agent is placed with the person detained in order to elicit information):
“John Doe (the undercover agent) never heard the name, ‘John Olvera’… Larin-Garcia knew (John Olvera), they went to high school, and never once in that jail cell was his name mentioned.”
Turning the discussion of the murder weapon, DDA Paixao noted that the gun used in the homicides is missing, but that bullet casings from the crime scenes, including a single casing found in Larin-Garcia’s car, came from a 9mm gun which is consistent with the ammunition found in the suspect’s bedroom.
DDA Paixao referenced the nature of the murders specifically, arguing that for each murder the defendant acted willfully, deliberately and with premeditation:
“We know that (the murders) were deliberate because he kept doing it,” said DDA Paixao. DDA also points out that, “(the shots) were succinct but they weren’t rapid fire. It wasn’t boom boom boom, but boom… boom… boom.”
DDA Paixao continued, “Each one was a calculated decision to end their life.”
The defense attorney, John Dolan, directed his closing arguments to the jury, and focused on the blood spatter on Larin-Garcia’s left side jacket and lack of blood spatter on the right side of the defendant’s jacket. According to Dolan, this is evidence that Larin-Garcia could not have shot one of the victims.
Dolan reminded the jury of the seating arrangements in the car. One of the victims sat in the backseat on the left side, Olvera sat in the middle, and the defendant sat in the back seat on the right side. Due to the lack of splatter on the right side of the defendant’s jacket, Dolan argued that a third person sitting in the middle seat of the car, John Olvera, was the only person who could have shot the victim.
“Remember there are three seatbelts, so the idea that it’s physically impossible to have three people in the back seat is just wrong again. It’s just wrong. I don’t care if you say the word ‘science’ a hundred times or ‘trigonometry’ or whatever, it’s wrong to say that three people couldn’t get into the back seat,” stated Dolan.
The prosecution asserted that the defendant had a gun on him, but from the defense attorney’s point of view, there is no evidence that the defendant had a gun that night.
“The evidence is that one person left the crime scene. That person was a thin, slender person, dressed in black, who turns out to be John Olvera. He is the person who took the gun away from the crime scene,” stated Dolan.
The prosecution had claimed that the person fleeing the scene was Larin-Garcia, but Dolan charged his client does not match the description and was under the truck after the collision occurred.
The defense attorney refocused the jury’s attention to the importance of Olvera, asserting that Olvera made contradictory statements, did not have an alibi for his whereabouts the night of the incident, and he matched the description of the person spotted at the traffic collision scene.
After being admitted to the hospital with injuries consistent with jumping out of a moving vehicle, the accused was discharged with no paperwork in hand. Without discharge papers, the prosecution asserted that Larin-Garcia was fleeing, but Dolan argued against this.
“[The accused] was being discharged. He didn’t have to have paperwork in his hand to leave the hospital,” stated Dolan.
Larin-Garcia had a high blood alcohol level at the hospital, meaning he was drunk.
Due to his drunken state, Dolan exclaimed, “There is no way this person could premeditate and deliberate first degree murder.”
Dolan referred to an expert witness testimony regarding slugs that were not collected immediately by the crime technician because they were forgotten. Dolan stated that the uncollected slugs were unrelated to the defendant.
The defense noted that the prosecution aimed for the jury to ignore certain witness testimonies, claiming the testimonies did not align with the prosecution’s narrative.
Dolan insisted the verdict should be not guilty.
“First degree murder is not proven. You can look at the lessers if you want and think about it, but to be honest none of those are proven. None of those are proven that [the defendant] did these killings. Olvera, there’s much more evidence against him than anything that has to do with Mr. Larin-Garcia. Not proven is the same as not guilty,” stated Dolan.
Dolan concluded his closing arguments by saying that Olvera should be the one being prosecuted, not Larin-Garcia.
In the prosecution’s rebuttal, DDA Paixao asserted that the defendant’s claim of not knowing how many people were in the vehicle at the time was false.
According to DDA Paixao, there were four people in the car and the defendant was the only one to survive.
The prosecution asserted that the location of the gunshot wounds showed premeditated and deliberate behavior.
To conclude the prosecution’s rebuttal, DDA Paixao advised the jury to carefully review the evidence.
“Jose Vladimir Larin-Garcia is a mass murderer. He killed four people in a matter of moments, ladies and gentlemen. Hold him accountable for what he did,” stated DDA Paixao.
After some final jury instructions Thursday, the quadruple murder trial for Jose Larin-Garcia proceeded with some arguments between counsels as the jury continued its deliberations.
Judge Anthony Villalobos told lawyers to request any necessary instructions or evidence while waiting for the jury to reach a verdict that would related to sentencing.
DDA Paixao began her request by claiming, “I haven’t received any reports or witness lists or anything from the defense, if they’re going to be presenting any evidence in mitigation I would be requesting that information…”
To this request, defense attorney Dolan swiftly stated that if the defense team had something they discovered, they would then turn it over when necessary. Judge Villalobos expressed that Dolan needed to have this information as soon as possible due to the possibility of the jury having a rapid verdict.
“The date that we gave them to be done is next Tuesday, if they come with a verdict on Monday, we’re going to be on March 1, so if they enter the guilty verdict then we have to automatically jump into the penalty phase right away,” explained Judge Villalobos.
He then expressed that Dolan’s request for extra time came as news to him because a day earlier both counsels had discussed the timing, particularly the March 1 date, for both phases.
DA Paixao agreed that both lawyers had come to a consensus about the date.
Judge Villalobos also expressed that extending the time would potentially risk losing the jury and getting a new jury for the penalty phase would take months.
As a result, Judge Villalobos declared that the court would not be inclined to accept a continuance, but due to Dolan’s insistence of pushing for time he would allow the defense to take the weekend to gather their material and reconvene on Monday Feb. 28.
Judge Villalobos also included that in the case that the jury came with a decision early, he would have the verdict be stated on Tuesday, March 1.
