BOISE, Idaho — Michael Vaughan vanished from Fruitland in 2021, and Idaho News 6 has followed the case ever since.
Now, the defense for the man charged with Vaughan's murder is expected to ask a judge Tuesday to dismiss the case, arguing prosecutors don't have enough evidence.
Investigators spent days excavating Stacey Wondra's backyard after receiving a tip that Michael's body was buried there. They found nothing. But that doesn't necessarily mean prosecutors don't have a murder case.
Watch to hear a legal expert explain what it takes to prove a murder occurred without a body —
Michael Vaughan disappeared in 2021, and investigators have never recovered his remains. So how can someone be charged with murder without a body?
Gross said the law has long allowed prosecutors to file murder charges without recovering a victim's body.
"It's a longstanding rule in the U.S. that we don't need a body to charge murder. We don't need human remains and we don't need DNA evidence," Gross said.
So how do investigators prove a crime happened without physical evidence?
Gross said prosecutors first have to rule out other reasonable explanations for a person's disappearance.
"You look at the evidence and say, is there any other compelling or reasonable explanation for this unexplained disappearance?" Gross said. "And with enough corroborating evidence and circumstantial evidence, a jury could reach a conclusion that a murder occurred and that this defendant committed it."
Gross said the rule is important because some criminals are skilled at hiding or disposing of bodies.
Instead, prosecutors may rely on corroborating evidence, such as blood tied to the victim, witness statements about a violent confrontation or cellphone location data placing a suspect at the scene.
While that evidence may be circumstantial, Gross said it can still be compelling.
According to American Police Beat, there have been about 660 no-body murder cases since 2012, with an 86% conviction rate.
Still, Gross said the strength of the corroborating and circumstantial evidence is what matters most.
In some cases, jailhouse statements can also play a role.
But in Wondra's case, he has claimed he witnessed a crime committed by others and did not participate. Gross said simply witnessing a crime generally is not a crime.
"There's no such thing as criminal liability for a bystander. Even if you could intervene at no danger to yourself and save somebody," Gross said.
Gross added that prosecutors don't have to reveal all of their evidence to establish probable cause. She said that's a much lower legal standard than proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ultimately, she said, deciding whether the evidence proves guilt belongs to the jury. "It's up to the jury, up to 12 laypeople. We entrust them to those decisions," Gross said.
Idaho News 6 will have complete coverage of Tuesday's hearing on air and online.
