Lerlene Roever
This is from: Justice Denied Vol. 1 Issue 2: 3/8/99 and can also be found on: http://lerlene.stormloader.com/
Lerlene 'Shasta' Roever
The Case Of Shasta Roever (by Clara Alicia Thomas Boggs)
Shasta's case is important to me. Shasta (Lerlene Roever) befriended my daughter, Kriseya, shortly after both arrived at the Nevada Women's Correctional Center in Carson City, Nevada. There was only a tiny handful of women among the hundreds who claimed to be innocent, so a special friendship grew between my daughter, who had only begun her life when tragedy struck, and Shasta, whose children were teenagers. In an eerie twist of fate, Kriseya's tragedy came on January 9, 1993, and Shasta's misfortune came scarcely a week later. Shasta tells her own story here, but I became involved after Kirk Vitto, her prosecuting DA, paid an unexpected visit to my daughter. I spoke to him the next day, and then again the last week of February. I will share the results of that conversation at the end of Shasta's story.
[By] Clara A. Thomas Boggs
"...I was crying loudly and begging Ian, "Come back to me!" "Come back!" "Don't you dare die on me!" After a while, it finally dawned on me that my CPR efforts weren't doing anything.... This was the man I loved!" I Did Not Kill the Man I loved By Lerlene Roever ("Shasta")
On Jan. 16, 1993, my fiancée, Ian Wilhite, and I were watching television with my three children. Ian was tired from a long work week, and relaxed on the couch with his head in my lap. By 9 P.M., my younger children had gone to bed and my oldest son, Dominic, and I talked about his problems at school with girls. Time elapsed and Ian awoke and reminded us of the hour. Dominic went to bed, Ian went to bed, and I turned off the TV and lights and also went to bed. When Ian had a few drinks, he would often shove against me in bed and get grumbly. We drank rum and cokes that night (his usual three to my one), so when I finally got under the covers, he shoved at me and I just didn't feel like arguing with him about it. We had a sofa bed in the living room for just such nights, so I once again went back out of the bedroom turned on the TV, fixed up the sofa, and soon fell asleep. There had been stormy weather for a couple of days and that night there was plenty of rain, lightning and thunder, which sounds louder in a mobile home than in a conventional home.
During the night, my youngest son, Raymond, awakened me to ask why the back door was open. This door didn't always catch right, so in my drowsy state I assumed the wind had blown it open again. I mumbled to Ray to close it. He did, then cuddled with me for a few minutes before going back to his bed.
My daughter, Jeanine, later told investigators that she witnessed all this because she had wandered out minutes before, turned the TV off, and sat on the other couch (love-seat) without my knowing it. Now I think the murderer must have entered and left, leaving the door open. The next morning, after waking, I went into the bedroom to get dressed. A drawer creaked as I opened it, and I turned quickly, fearing I had disturbed Ian on his Saturday morning chance to sleep in. He appeared to still be asleep, but I felt a strange and unexplainable feeling come over me that something wasn't right. I went to him and touched his shoulder. He was cold. With an electric blanket on and covering him, this did not make sense to me, and the creepy feeling increased. I turned him onto his back and saw he was too pale and his face didn't move. When I was a child my mother once took an overdose of pills and she looked just like this. I thought she was dead. Seeing Ian like that frightened me and I panicked. I ran through the trailer screaming hysterically, "He's dead! My God, Ian's dead!" Dominic came out of his room, pulling on his robe and asked, "Are you sure he's not breathing?" Not breathing ... CPR! I ran back in and began CPR procedures, but not too well because I was crying loudly and begging Ian, "Come back to me!" "Come back!" "Don't you dare die on me!" After a while, it finally dawned on me that my CPR efforts weren't doing anything. This was the man I loved! I turned him back onto his side and covered him up again. I guess I somehow thought that if I could warm him up, maybe the paramedics could bring him back. I really don't know what I thought then.
Next I called the local Sheriff's Department by punching the preset button. I was so hysterical that the woman who answered the phone kept saying, "I can't understand you ma'am" and, "You need to calm down ma'am." I finally handed the phone to Dominic, who was more composed and could speak more clearly than I. He told the woman that Ian was dead and that we were reporting a murder (Dominic thought he saw bruises on Ian's back, which later proved to be lividity), and gave her directions to our home.
Soon deputies arrived and forced me to remain in the living room for nearly 12 hours with no one to talk to other than police. They denied me any medical care and repeatedly questioned me. That night, the coroner arrived and they took Ian from the trailer. I saw them drop him once and bang him into the back door frame. After that, I was allowed to go to the neighbor's home because I just couldn't handle being alone in there for the night.
I was questioned again at the neighbor's the next day. On January 18th, I was arrested. The coroner stated that Ian had been shot by a .22 caliber weapon. Since I owned a .22 caliber Astra handgun, I was singled out. (It was my mother's, given to my grandmother, and I had taken it away from her when she began to show the first signs of what I thought was Alzheimer's Disease.)
This, plus my supposed "mental state" (the "state" for which they refused to give me medication) were the reasons given for arresting me.
Ballistics tests later determined that the Astra was not the weapon used. Even though extensive searches were done on the property, including metal detectors, and it was accepted that I had not left the property during the night, had no wet clothes in the house, and owned no clothes dryer, I was still not released.
Ian had explained to me and to my Uncle, Floyd Draper, that his life had been threatened while he was living in Las Vegas, and that was why he had moved to Pahrump, Nevada, in the first place. He went into more detail with my uncle than he did with me about the details. But this was why he was referred to as "Buddy" in Las Vegas, and by his real name in Pahrump. He also didn't tell anyone in Vegas exactly where he lived until four years after moving, when he even asked me to draw up a couple of simple maps for a friend or two. Ian worked in Las Vegas, but commuted the hour or so to work. After his death, I was told he had been frequenting some of the adult entertainment places in town and had maintained his old lifestyle of drinking, drugs and strippers. I had known of a couple of times he had gone to "strip bars" while on lunch break from the elementary school where he worked. We argued about it. He said he wouldn't go anymore, and there wasn't much more said about it until the deputies and other investigators asked me about Ian's past and his life, and if I knew anyone who might have a grudge against him.
At the first trial, I was advised not to testify. My public defender told me, "The State has the burden of proof, and there is absolutely no evidence against you. So unless you have a burning desire to testify, I wouldn't recommend it." He even assured me that it was not for me to defend myself -- that since I was innocent, there was nothing to defend. This is why I didn't take the stand.
During this trial, several of my Constitutional Rights were deliberately violated:
- The State's key witness, the main investigator, lied on the stand.
- Then during cross-examination, he impeached his own testimony: he chummed up to and chatted with the jurors at the various breaks during trial. His excuse was that it was in the only smoking area in the court building, but this man was present all days of the trial, and never needed to share the area with the jurors before or after our questioning of him.
After a mere five days in court, including jury selection, I was convicted of 1st Degree Murder with the use of a deadly weapon, and sentenced to 2 consecutive life terms, with the chance of parole after 20 years minimum. My Public Defender filed an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court and, in August of 1995, the unanimous decision came down to overturn the conviction due to the errors and violations that took place during the trial. It was also noted that, "there was no physical evidence to link the defendant to the crime." They also remanded me back to the same court for a retrial.
By the time of the next trial, I was adamant about testifying, and I did. However, the effectiveness of my testimony was severely compromised because my public defender avoided and/or refused to ask the important questions regarding Ian's background and associates, as well as many other things the jury needed to hear to make a fully informed decision. Furthermore, these important points weren't even broached during the trial. I felt that my attorney put on a mere token of a defense. He refused to subpoena anyone on the two-page list I gave him, and even insulted my uncle, the only witness who was there for me.
I was convicted again, given the same sentence, and am again sitting in prison awaiting the results of another appeal.
This time the district attorney admitted there was no evidence, and the weapon still has not been found to this day, so he felt justified in trying me based on whatever stories or opinions his witnesses could fabricate about my character. In a press article, the DA himself said he did not believe these stories about me were true:
"However, Chief Deputy D.A. Kirk Vitto argued in his response to the Supreme Court that ultimately, the truth behind the stories is immaterial. In fact, he said, prosecutors assumed the stories weren't true." ("Third time the charm for PV murder case?" -- Pahrump Valley Times, May 23, 1997).
I am certain that this conviction will also be reversed and overturned. I must admit that this time I am praying that the Supreme Court Justices will simply end this matter and this travesty once and for all.
Some points to consider in my case:
My attorney himself told me that he, the judge and the sheriff are all very good friends. "Best of Buddies," is how I think he put it.
Before the second trial, my public defender refused my phone calls, and for months wouldn't answer letters I wrote to him. I didn't even see him until the first day of jury selection. When I wrote to the judge to complain and express my concern over this and other things amounting to my complete dissatisfaction and lack of confidence in my attorney's abilities to put on the best possible defense for me, I requested that a new lawyer be assigned. The judge brought this up to me and stated that he was denying my request, and that Harry was the best defense attorney, and that he (the judge) had full faith that Harry would do the best job for me. I was not permitted to specify any of the particular complaints.
My first trial was a mere five days, the second trial was only 6 days long -- and both periods included the time-consuming process of jury selection.
The District Attorney deliberately had witnesses testify to events or circumstances that either never occurred and were easily verified, or could have been disproved with minimal checking. One woman stated that I had told her I had killed my own mother and a baby. My mother actually drowned, with occlusive arteriosclerosis of the coronary arteries contributing to her death. There was an investigation on this. I did lose a child at birth years before. He was born at a hospital with the umbilical cord wrapped around his neck. The doctor said it was asphyxiation. I made the mistake of telling the neighbor I went to stay with that I just didn't think I could handle much more death in my life, and told her about my mom and my baby boy. She perverted my sharing of my tragic history on the stand and, without opposition from my lawyer, made my personal and sad losses seem morbid and tawdry.
My ex-husband, whom I had thrown out for lying to me and stealing from me years before also was called to testify against me to tell lies that my son even stated were lies.
My ex's mother was called to discredit my character in any way she could. A woman who once admitted to me that she was in love with Ian and wished he would be interested in older women came up with some tales that I hadn't a clue about.
Nothing was said about there being no evidence, no motive, and no weapon. Everything was focused on destroying my character, defaming my reputation -- in short, getting the conviction regardless of what is truth, right or just in a court of law.
Shock tactics and lurid and blatant falsehoods presented to prejudice a jury is certainly not proof of any guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
On September 2, 1998 the Nevada Supreme Court once again unanimously overturned my conviction. I found out 11 days later through a friend who read the newspaper article, and not immediately through my lawyer.
Justices Young, Springer, and Rose commented in the main body of the Opinion that, "Much of the bad act evidence admitted was so inflammatory,speculative, and utterly fantastic as to bear practically no probative value." Citing case law, they further stated, "Accordingly, even if clear and convincing evidence established the existence of these acts and the acts were relevant to the crime charged, we conclude that any probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice as a matter of law."
They concluded that admitting this "evidence" served only to violate my fundamental right to a fair trial. The "bad act evidence" referred to the false testimonies given by a neighbor and my ex-husband, evidence which a minimum of investigating would prove to be the lies they are.
The jurors had stated their concern about the lack of evidence, but felt the circumstantial evidence was enough for a conviction. That same circumstantial evidence was what the Justices ruled responsible for violating my rights and being highly prejudicial. Obviously they were correct. The jurors were swayed enough by these lies and the he-said she-said stuff that they were able to overlook the facts of no weapon, no motive, no gain for me and, as the Supreme Court stated in the first conviction overturn, "there was no physical evidence to link Roever to the crime."
Justices Shearing and Maupin differed on particular points, but also concurred to overturn, affirming that my rights were violated. This is twice now that Assistant DA Kirk Vitto feels he can do anything -- regardless of the law or morality and ethics -- to gain the conviction of an innocent woman.
After I received confirmation of the overturn, Mr. Vitto came to the prison and extensively questioned my roommate, Kriseya (another innocent victim of our justice system), about me. He still sought to discredit my character. Since this is nearly 6 years later and my roommate didn't know me in January, 1993, when this travesty began, his interrogation of her can only be construed as deliberate persecution. That's how Kriseya felt during his interrogation. She also felt that Mr. Vitto was trying to alienate us from each other with his lies and half-truths. Several other people have said the same after hearing about this.
Obviously this man is not "seeking the truth," as he claims, but is willing to use any means to hang onto his conviction. The same day Vitto was at the prison, my belongings were thoroughly searched (the first time in nearly 6 years), and Mr. Vitto knew about it and just happened to speak with the same guard who searched my room. Coincidence?
On September 15, 1998, the District Attorney filed a Petition For Rehearing with the Supreme Court. He contends that all five Justices are wrong about particular points and wants the chance to show them their errors, and that he is right.
In our Opposition to Respondent's Petition for Rehearing filed September 17, 1998, my public defender wrote, "The State's miscarriage of justice 'served only to violate Roever's fundamental right to a fair trial'."
He further wrote, "The net effect of a petition for rehearing is that Roever will languish for an additional six months or so in prison while the remittitur is delayed. This court had the benefit of two rounds of appellate briefs and oral argument before reversing this travesty. Counsel for the state now asks for a third round. How many times must this court countenance the state's inability or unwillingness to accept what, to the rest of us, is crystal clear? Certainly, sanctions against the state in a published opinion will serve to further educate the Bar and the tiny minority who do not comprehend."
If a proper investigation had been conducted in the first place instead of immediately targeting me and railroading me, Mr. Vitto and the misguided D.A may have found their "truth."
As it is, too much time, taxpayer money (now approximately over three-quarters of a million, folks) and effort has been spent to destroy a woman's life, family and naive belief in the police, state investigators and the court system, only to prove nothing, because I am innocent of this crime.
I now have complete disgust for prosecutors (such as Mr. Vitto) who profess to be Christian while lying, conniving, and ignoring truth for a conviction for their esteemed "record." Since I've repeatedly refused all plea bargains offered by the prosecutors (I'm told if I had accepted a plea, I'd likely be out by now), it seems that the State and the court prefer a conviction of any kind over justice or truth.
I know my case is in no way unique. Many are being abused and victimized by a system that we, as taxpayers supposedly pay to protect us. I am trying not to become embittered and cynical by this whole mess and am dependent upon the Lord to vindicate me.
I sure can't count on honesty, ethics, or integrity in a courtroom. I appeal to anyone interested to please write your major newspapers, the Nevada Attorney General, TV and radio stations, the Nevada Supreme Court and anyone else you can think of who will make a stand against this deliberate abuse of our legal system and to decry the continual persecution of a woman who only wants to try to pick up the pieces of a shattered life.
Since I was repeatedly offered a plea-bargain which would have made me eligible to get out years ago, it is obviously not a case of my being a threat to anyone, but a pride issue with the prosecutor.
Thank you for your interest and your prayers and support. If you are not wealthy, famous or politically powerful, what happened to me could happen to you. Injustices such as this should not be allowed in our modern and enlightened times. Our "protectors" must not be allowed and/or encouraged to destroy lives and violate our basic Constitutional rights, and perpetuate more lies and pain for the innocent for self-seeking reasons.
I would love to hear from anyone who would like to say howdy, and will answer any and all questions. Thank you for caring to read this from a 40-year-old woman who desperately misses her children and life as she once knew it.
Contact
Lerlene Roever, #62297
FMWCC - 1-F
4370 Smiley Rd.
Las Vegas, NV 89115
Kent Melvin
P.O. Box 223
Brush, CO 80723
970-842-3114
From the Editor:
Someone from a men's prison wrote to tell Shasta he knows who killed Ian -- a man who calls himself "The Shadow." Shasta's uncle, Floyd Draper, has this letter.
After Kirk Vitto had interrogated my daughter, Kriseya, last September, we had a long telephone conversation. I was warned that Vitto could lie convincingly, for he misrepresented several facts to Kriseya in what now seems was an attempt to trap her into revealing something he could use against Shasta. Nevertheless, I was not prepared for his disarming first words. When I first identified myself, his tone was indifferent. When I told him I was Kriseya's mother, he warmly exclaimed, "Your daughter is a delight!" On that footing, we spoke amiably. Still, I pressed the issue, but could get no further than his saying that he was determined to keep prosecuting Lerlene.
Now, calling him almost six months later, I had different questions. According to Shasta, Vitto knows about a man who confessed to the murder. This was the issue I now pressed. I was stymied again. Kirk Vitto maintains that he only acknowledged that the defense informed him that they have a letter saying someone else killed Ian. He also told me that he knows for a fact that the man in question didn't kill Ian. When I asked how he knew, he said he couldn't discuss it.
Meanwhile, there is a new wrinkle to Shasta's case. Sharon Dockter, co-counsel with Harry Kuehn, went to work for the D.A.'s office. Shasta was granted a motion to take Kuehn off the case, and Vitto has assigned the case to Kevin Pasquale, who, Vitto told me, will continue to vigorously prosecute Shasta. At the same time, Shasta will finally get her new attorney, Rick Lawton, of Fallon, Nevada. Shasta may not be much better off: Lawton is six hours from Shasta, and so far he has only briefly introduced himself. If there is an investigative reporter in our audience, please consider looking into Shasta's case. You may contact me or Kent Melvin.
Clara Alicia Thomas Boggs
Justice: Denied -- The Magazine for the Wrongly Convicted
kent_melvin@hotmail.com
Update in Justice Denied Vol. 2 Issue 1:
Lerlene Roever (Shasta) Update: Bereft, More Alone Than Ever Lerlene Roever, known as "Peanut" to some friends and "Shasta" to others was dealt a crushing blow on July 20 when she was called in to see her case worker. "I'm supposed to tell you that your uncle is dead. He's been dead for about three weeks and a neighbor found him because of the smell. The District Attorney's office and the Sheriff's office want to know if he had a will, and if so, where it is, and do you want him cremated or buried."
Shasta's story was told in Issue 2 of JD. She was charged with having murdered the man she loved, Ian, although no evidence whatever linked her to the crime. Although he'd been involved with drugs previously and that was the more probable area to look for his killer, the police and DA's office seized on her as the handiest target.
In all Shasta's battles, there was her faithful Uncle Floyd Draper, tirelessly trying to find justice for the niece he knew was innocent. It was he who would write letters to the editor, who called lawyers and asked for them to return calls (in vain). It was Floyd who wrote to Shasta, accepted her collect calls, and who kept all her important papers and the memorabilia of the five generations of her family.
When his death was discovered, the Nye County, Nevada District Attorney and Sheriff sent men to take everything but the furniture from Mr. Draper's home and haul it away in an industrial sized dumpster.
Shasta is understandably in shock over multiple losses, the primary one of losing her best friend and champion. Beyond that, however, she has now lost the only person willing to fight to prove her innocence.
I am making a personal plea for someone to help this woman who has suffered so much, and yet has tried to give so much to others. She is presently working in the education department after having pushed hard to have more programs to help the inmates.
Please see the archives, Issue 2, for her complete story.
Search your heart for willingness to help this woman who is now without the best friend she had in the world. You may write to Shasta directly. If you do, we would like to know who you are, so please drop a note to JusDenMail@aol.com (Nancy Sanders, our mail handler). Thank you in advance for however you are moved to help.
Lerlene 'Shasta' Roever
The Case Of Shasta Roever (by Clara Alicia Thomas Boggs)
Shasta's case is important to me. Shasta (Lerlene Roever) befriended my daughter, Kriseya, shortly after both arrived at the Nevada Women's Correctional Center in Carson City, Nevada. There was only a tiny handful of women among the hundreds who claimed to be innocent, so a special friendship grew between my daughter, who had only begun her life when tragedy struck, and Shasta, whose children were teenagers. In an eerie twist of fate, Kriseya's tragedy came on January 9, 1993, and Shasta's misfortune came scarcely a week later. Shasta tells her own story here, but I became involved after Kirk Vitto, her prosecuting DA, paid an unexpected visit to my daughter. I spoke to him the next day, and then again the last week of February. I will share the results of that conversation at the end of Shasta's story.
[By] Clara A. Thomas Boggs
"...I was crying loudly and begging Ian, "Come back to me!" "Come back!" "Don't you dare die on me!" After a while, it finally dawned on me that my CPR efforts weren't doing anything.... This was the man I loved!" I Did Not Kill the Man I loved By Lerlene Roever ("Shasta")
On Jan. 16, 1993, my fiancée, Ian Wilhite, and I were watching television with my three children. Ian was tired from a long work week, and relaxed on the couch with his head in my lap. By 9 P.M., my younger children had gone to bed and my oldest son, Dominic, and I talked about his problems at school with girls. Time elapsed and Ian awoke and reminded us of the hour. Dominic went to bed, Ian went to bed, and I turned off the TV and lights and also went to bed. When Ian had a few drinks, he would often shove against me in bed and get grumbly. We drank rum and cokes that night (his usual three to my one), so when I finally got under the covers, he shoved at me and I just didn't feel like arguing with him about it. We had a sofa bed in the living room for just such nights, so I once again went back out of the bedroom turned on the TV, fixed up the sofa, and soon fell asleep. There had been stormy weather for a couple of days and that night there was plenty of rain, lightning and thunder, which sounds louder in a mobile home than in a conventional home.
During the night, my youngest son, Raymond, awakened me to ask why the back door was open. This door didn't always catch right, so in my drowsy state I assumed the wind had blown it open again. I mumbled to Ray to close it. He did, then cuddled with me for a few minutes before going back to his bed.
My daughter, Jeanine, later told investigators that she witnessed all this because she had wandered out minutes before, turned the TV off, and sat on the other couch (love-seat) without my knowing it. Now I think the murderer must have entered and left, leaving the door open. The next morning, after waking, I went into the bedroom to get dressed. A drawer creaked as I opened it, and I turned quickly, fearing I had disturbed Ian on his Saturday morning chance to sleep in. He appeared to still be asleep, but I felt a strange and unexplainable feeling come over me that something wasn't right. I went to him and touched his shoulder. He was cold. With an electric blanket on and covering him, this did not make sense to me, and the creepy feeling increased. I turned him onto his back and saw he was too pale and his face didn't move. When I was a child my mother once took an overdose of pills and she looked just like this. I thought she was dead. Seeing Ian like that frightened me and I panicked. I ran through the trailer screaming hysterically, "He's dead! My God, Ian's dead!" Dominic came out of his room, pulling on his robe and asked, "Are you sure he's not breathing?" Not breathing ... CPR! I ran back in and began CPR procedures, but not too well because I was crying loudly and begging Ian, "Come back to me!" "Come back!" "Don't you dare die on me!" After a while, it finally dawned on me that my CPR efforts weren't doing anything. This was the man I loved! I turned him back onto his side and covered him up again. I guess I somehow thought that if I could warm him up, maybe the paramedics could bring him back. I really don't know what I thought then.
Next I called the local Sheriff's Department by punching the preset button. I was so hysterical that the woman who answered the phone kept saying, "I can't understand you ma'am" and, "You need to calm down ma'am." I finally handed the phone to Dominic, who was more composed and could speak more clearly than I. He told the woman that Ian was dead and that we were reporting a murder (Dominic thought he saw bruises on Ian's back, which later proved to be lividity), and gave her directions to our home.
Soon deputies arrived and forced me to remain in the living room for nearly 12 hours with no one to talk to other than police. They denied me any medical care and repeatedly questioned me. That night, the coroner arrived and they took Ian from the trailer. I saw them drop him once and bang him into the back door frame. After that, I was allowed to go to the neighbor's home because I just couldn't handle being alone in there for the night.
I was questioned again at the neighbor's the next day. On January 18th, I was arrested. The coroner stated that Ian had been shot by a .22 caliber weapon. Since I owned a .22 caliber Astra handgun, I was singled out. (It was my mother's, given to my grandmother, and I had taken it away from her when she began to show the first signs of what I thought was Alzheimer's Disease.)
This, plus my supposed "mental state" (the "state" for which they refused to give me medication) were the reasons given for arresting me.
Ballistics tests later determined that the Astra was not the weapon used. Even though extensive searches were done on the property, including metal detectors, and it was accepted that I had not left the property during the night, had no wet clothes in the house, and owned no clothes dryer, I was still not released.
Ian had explained to me and to my Uncle, Floyd Draper, that his life had been threatened while he was living in Las Vegas, and that was why he had moved to Pahrump, Nevada, in the first place. He went into more detail with my uncle than he did with me about the details. But this was why he was referred to as "Buddy" in Las Vegas, and by his real name in Pahrump. He also didn't tell anyone in Vegas exactly where he lived until four years after moving, when he even asked me to draw up a couple of simple maps for a friend or two. Ian worked in Las Vegas, but commuted the hour or so to work. After his death, I was told he had been frequenting some of the adult entertainment places in town and had maintained his old lifestyle of drinking, drugs and strippers. I had known of a couple of times he had gone to "strip bars" while on lunch break from the elementary school where he worked. We argued about it. He said he wouldn't go anymore, and there wasn't much more said about it until the deputies and other investigators asked me about Ian's past and his life, and if I knew anyone who might have a grudge against him.
At the first trial, I was advised not to testify. My public defender told me, "The State has the burden of proof, and there is absolutely no evidence against you. So unless you have a burning desire to testify, I wouldn't recommend it." He even assured me that it was not for me to defend myself -- that since I was innocent, there was nothing to defend. This is why I didn't take the stand.
During this trial, several of my Constitutional Rights were deliberately violated:
- The State's key witness, the main investigator, lied on the stand.
- Then during cross-examination, he impeached his own testimony: he chummed up to and chatted with the jurors at the various breaks during trial. His excuse was that it was in the only smoking area in the court building, but this man was present all days of the trial, and never needed to share the area with the jurors before or after our questioning of him.
After a mere five days in court, including jury selection, I was convicted of 1st Degree Murder with the use of a deadly weapon, and sentenced to 2 consecutive life terms, with the chance of parole after 20 years minimum. My Public Defender filed an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court and, in August of 1995, the unanimous decision came down to overturn the conviction due to the errors and violations that took place during the trial. It was also noted that, "there was no physical evidence to link the defendant to the crime." They also remanded me back to the same court for a retrial.
By the time of the next trial, I was adamant about testifying, and I did. However, the effectiveness of my testimony was severely compromised because my public defender avoided and/or refused to ask the important questions regarding Ian's background and associates, as well as many other things the jury needed to hear to make a fully informed decision. Furthermore, these important points weren't even broached during the trial. I felt that my attorney put on a mere token of a defense. He refused to subpoena anyone on the two-page list I gave him, and even insulted my uncle, the only witness who was there for me.
I was convicted again, given the same sentence, and am again sitting in prison awaiting the results of another appeal.
This time the district attorney admitted there was no evidence, and the weapon still has not been found to this day, so he felt justified in trying me based on whatever stories or opinions his witnesses could fabricate about my character. In a press article, the DA himself said he did not believe these stories about me were true:
"However, Chief Deputy D.A. Kirk Vitto argued in his response to the Supreme Court that ultimately, the truth behind the stories is immaterial. In fact, he said, prosecutors assumed the stories weren't true." ("Third time the charm for PV murder case?" -- Pahrump Valley Times, May 23, 1997).
I am certain that this conviction will also be reversed and overturned. I must admit that this time I am praying that the Supreme Court Justices will simply end this matter and this travesty once and for all.
Some points to consider in my case:
My attorney himself told me that he, the judge and the sheriff are all very good friends. "Best of Buddies," is how I think he put it.
Before the second trial, my public defender refused my phone calls, and for months wouldn't answer letters I wrote to him. I didn't even see him until the first day of jury selection. When I wrote to the judge to complain and express my concern over this and other things amounting to my complete dissatisfaction and lack of confidence in my attorney's abilities to put on the best possible defense for me, I requested that a new lawyer be assigned. The judge brought this up to me and stated that he was denying my request, and that Harry was the best defense attorney, and that he (the judge) had full faith that Harry would do the best job for me. I was not permitted to specify any of the particular complaints.
My first trial was a mere five days, the second trial was only 6 days long -- and both periods included the time-consuming process of jury selection.
The District Attorney deliberately had witnesses testify to events or circumstances that either never occurred and were easily verified, or could have been disproved with minimal checking. One woman stated that I had told her I had killed my own mother and a baby. My mother actually drowned, with occlusive arteriosclerosis of the coronary arteries contributing to her death. There was an investigation on this. I did lose a child at birth years before. He was born at a hospital with the umbilical cord wrapped around his neck. The doctor said it was asphyxiation. I made the mistake of telling the neighbor I went to stay with that I just didn't think I could handle much more death in my life, and told her about my mom and my baby boy. She perverted my sharing of my tragic history on the stand and, without opposition from my lawyer, made my personal and sad losses seem morbid and tawdry.
My ex-husband, whom I had thrown out for lying to me and stealing from me years before also was called to testify against me to tell lies that my son even stated were lies.
My ex's mother was called to discredit my character in any way she could. A woman who once admitted to me that she was in love with Ian and wished he would be interested in older women came up with some tales that I hadn't a clue about.
Nothing was said about there being no evidence, no motive, and no weapon. Everything was focused on destroying my character, defaming my reputation -- in short, getting the conviction regardless of what is truth, right or just in a court of law.
Shock tactics and lurid and blatant falsehoods presented to prejudice a jury is certainly not proof of any guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
On September 2, 1998 the Nevada Supreme Court once again unanimously overturned my conviction. I found out 11 days later through a friend who read the newspaper article, and not immediately through my lawyer.
Justices Young, Springer, and Rose commented in the main body of the Opinion that, "Much of the bad act evidence admitted was so inflammatory,speculative, and utterly fantastic as to bear practically no probative value." Citing case law, they further stated, "Accordingly, even if clear and convincing evidence established the existence of these acts and the acts were relevant to the crime charged, we conclude that any probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice as a matter of law."
They concluded that admitting this "evidence" served only to violate my fundamental right to a fair trial. The "bad act evidence" referred to the false testimonies given by a neighbor and my ex-husband, evidence which a minimum of investigating would prove to be the lies they are.
The jurors had stated their concern about the lack of evidence, but felt the circumstantial evidence was enough for a conviction. That same circumstantial evidence was what the Justices ruled responsible for violating my rights and being highly prejudicial. Obviously they were correct. The jurors were swayed enough by these lies and the he-said she-said stuff that they were able to overlook the facts of no weapon, no motive, no gain for me and, as the Supreme Court stated in the first conviction overturn, "there was no physical evidence to link Roever to the crime."
Justices Shearing and Maupin differed on particular points, but also concurred to overturn, affirming that my rights were violated. This is twice now that Assistant DA Kirk Vitto feels he can do anything -- regardless of the law or morality and ethics -- to gain the conviction of an innocent woman.
After I received confirmation of the overturn, Mr. Vitto came to the prison and extensively questioned my roommate, Kriseya (another innocent victim of our justice system), about me. He still sought to discredit my character. Since this is nearly 6 years later and my roommate didn't know me in January, 1993, when this travesty began, his interrogation of her can only be construed as deliberate persecution. That's how Kriseya felt during his interrogation. She also felt that Mr. Vitto was trying to alienate us from each other with his lies and half-truths. Several other people have said the same after hearing about this.
Obviously this man is not "seeking the truth," as he claims, but is willing to use any means to hang onto his conviction. The same day Vitto was at the prison, my belongings were thoroughly searched (the first time in nearly 6 years), and Mr. Vitto knew about it and just happened to speak with the same guard who searched my room. Coincidence?
On September 15, 1998, the District Attorney filed a Petition For Rehearing with the Supreme Court. He contends that all five Justices are wrong about particular points and wants the chance to show them their errors, and that he is right.
In our Opposition to Respondent's Petition for Rehearing filed September 17, 1998, my public defender wrote, "The State's miscarriage of justice 'served only to violate Roever's fundamental right to a fair trial'."
He further wrote, "The net effect of a petition for rehearing is that Roever will languish for an additional six months or so in prison while the remittitur is delayed. This court had the benefit of two rounds of appellate briefs and oral argument before reversing this travesty. Counsel for the state now asks for a third round. How many times must this court countenance the state's inability or unwillingness to accept what, to the rest of us, is crystal clear? Certainly, sanctions against the state in a published opinion will serve to further educate the Bar and the tiny minority who do not comprehend."
If a proper investigation had been conducted in the first place instead of immediately targeting me and railroading me, Mr. Vitto and the misguided D.A may have found their "truth."
As it is, too much time, taxpayer money (now approximately over three-quarters of a million, folks) and effort has been spent to destroy a woman's life, family and naive belief in the police, state investigators and the court system, only to prove nothing, because I am innocent of this crime.
I now have complete disgust for prosecutors (such as Mr. Vitto) who profess to be Christian while lying, conniving, and ignoring truth for a conviction for their esteemed "record." Since I've repeatedly refused all plea bargains offered by the prosecutors (I'm told if I had accepted a plea, I'd likely be out by now), it seems that the State and the court prefer a conviction of any kind over justice or truth.
I know my case is in no way unique. Many are being abused and victimized by a system that we, as taxpayers supposedly pay to protect us. I am trying not to become embittered and cynical by this whole mess and am dependent upon the Lord to vindicate me.
I sure can't count on honesty, ethics, or integrity in a courtroom. I appeal to anyone interested to please write your major newspapers, the Nevada Attorney General, TV and radio stations, the Nevada Supreme Court and anyone else you can think of who will make a stand against this deliberate abuse of our legal system and to decry the continual persecution of a woman who only wants to try to pick up the pieces of a shattered life.
Since I was repeatedly offered a plea-bargain which would have made me eligible to get out years ago, it is obviously not a case of my being a threat to anyone, but a pride issue with the prosecutor.
Thank you for your interest and your prayers and support. If you are not wealthy, famous or politically powerful, what happened to me could happen to you. Injustices such as this should not be allowed in our modern and enlightened times. Our "protectors" must not be allowed and/or encouraged to destroy lives and violate our basic Constitutional rights, and perpetuate more lies and pain for the innocent for self-seeking reasons.
I would love to hear from anyone who would like to say howdy, and will answer any and all questions. Thank you for caring to read this from a 40-year-old woman who desperately misses her children and life as she once knew it.
Contact
Lerlene Roever, #62297
FMWCC - 1-F
4370 Smiley Rd.
Las Vegas, NV 89115
Kent Melvin
P.O. Box 223
Brush, CO 80723
970-842-3114
From the Editor:
Someone from a men's prison wrote to tell Shasta he knows who killed Ian -- a man who calls himself "The Shadow." Shasta's uncle, Floyd Draper, has this letter.
After Kirk Vitto had interrogated my daughter, Kriseya, last September, we had a long telephone conversation. I was warned that Vitto could lie convincingly, for he misrepresented several facts to Kriseya in what now seems was an attempt to trap her into revealing something he could use against Shasta. Nevertheless, I was not prepared for his disarming first words. When I first identified myself, his tone was indifferent. When I told him I was Kriseya's mother, he warmly exclaimed, "Your daughter is a delight!" On that footing, we spoke amiably. Still, I pressed the issue, but could get no further than his saying that he was determined to keep prosecuting Lerlene.
Now, calling him almost six months later, I had different questions. According to Shasta, Vitto knows about a man who confessed to the murder. This was the issue I now pressed. I was stymied again. Kirk Vitto maintains that he only acknowledged that the defense informed him that they have a letter saying someone else killed Ian. He also told me that he knows for a fact that the man in question didn't kill Ian. When I asked how he knew, he said he couldn't discuss it.
Meanwhile, there is a new wrinkle to Shasta's case. Sharon Dockter, co-counsel with Harry Kuehn, went to work for the D.A.'s office. Shasta was granted a motion to take Kuehn off the case, and Vitto has assigned the case to Kevin Pasquale, who, Vitto told me, will continue to vigorously prosecute Shasta. At the same time, Shasta will finally get her new attorney, Rick Lawton, of Fallon, Nevada. Shasta may not be much better off: Lawton is six hours from Shasta, and so far he has only briefly introduced himself. If there is an investigative reporter in our audience, please consider looking into Shasta's case. You may contact me or Kent Melvin.
Clara Alicia Thomas Boggs
Justice: Denied -- The Magazine for the Wrongly Convicted
kent_melvin@hotmail.com
Update in Justice Denied Vol. 2 Issue 1:
Lerlene Roever (Shasta) Update: Bereft, More Alone Than Ever Lerlene Roever, known as "Peanut" to some friends and "Shasta" to others was dealt a crushing blow on July 20 when she was called in to see her case worker. "I'm supposed to tell you that your uncle is dead. He's been dead for about three weeks and a neighbor found him because of the smell. The District Attorney's office and the Sheriff's office want to know if he had a will, and if so, where it is, and do you want him cremated or buried."
Shasta's story was told in Issue 2 of JD. She was charged with having murdered the man she loved, Ian, although no evidence whatever linked her to the crime. Although he'd been involved with drugs previously and that was the more probable area to look for his killer, the police and DA's office seized on her as the handiest target.
In all Shasta's battles, there was her faithful Uncle Floyd Draper, tirelessly trying to find justice for the niece he knew was innocent. It was he who would write letters to the editor, who called lawyers and asked for them to return calls (in vain). It was Floyd who wrote to Shasta, accepted her collect calls, and who kept all her important papers and the memorabilia of the five generations of her family.
When his death was discovered, the Nye County, Nevada District Attorney and Sheriff sent men to take everything but the furniture from Mr. Draper's home and haul it away in an industrial sized dumpster.
Shasta is understandably in shock over multiple losses, the primary one of losing her best friend and champion. Beyond that, however, she has now lost the only person willing to fight to prove her innocence.
I am making a personal plea for someone to help this woman who has suffered so much, and yet has tried to give so much to others. She is presently working in the education department after having pushed hard to have more programs to help the inmates.
Please see the archives, Issue 2, for her complete story.
Search your heart for willingness to help this woman who is now without the best friend she had in the world. You may write to Shasta directly. If you do, we would like to know who you are, so please drop a note to JusDenMail@aol.com (Nancy Sanders, our mail handler). Thank you in advance for however you are moved to help.
