Thursday, March 13, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- An attorney for Las Vegas killer Kevin Lisle told the state Supreme Court that District Judge Sally Loehrer encouraged lies to be presented to the jury in Clark County.
Ralph Baker said the "integrity of the judicial system will collapse" if this conduct is allowed to stand.
But justices indicated they didn't buy the Baker arguments. Justice Bob Rose said Loehrer's ruling actually protected Lisle's rights during the penalty hearing.
The court heard arguments on the appeal of Lisle and co-defendant Jerry Lopez, convicted of fatally shooting 19-year-old Justin Lusch, the son of then-North Las Vegas Police Chief Ron Lusch.
Lisle got the death penalty and Lopez received a life prison term with the possibility of parole for the killing in August 1994 in the desert near Lone Mountain, northwest of Las Vegas.
The court will rule later on the arguments.
Deputy District Attorney Dan Seaton, who prosecuted the case, said Loehrer made the correct rulings and added there was overwhelming evidence to convict the two men.
The verdict, Baker said, was "corrupted and corroded by error," the gravest of which was the refusal of Loehrer to declare a mistrial.
He cited a pre-trial decision by Loehrer not to permit evidence that Lisle was convicted of the October 1994 freeway shooting of Kip Logan and sentenced to death, but during questions of witnesses during the Lisle-Lopez penalty hearing, Seaton elicited testimony that narrowed the identification of the Logan killer to Lisle, without ever mentioning his name. Baker said the judge should have declared a mistrial then.
To make matters worse, Baker said, the judge then "ordered the district attorney's office to fabricate people" who could also be identified as the Logan killer. He said the judge wanted to "mislead the jury."
"A judge is to see that the trial is fair and the truth comes out," Baker argued.
Justice Bill Maupin wondered how the "fabrication" was a denial of due process and indicated it was done to shield the defendant. Justice Cliff Young also questioned whether the jurors were able to deduct that Lisle had been involved in a prior killing. He said there were many names in the case and while the attorneys may have known about Lisle's past, he doubted the jurors could have determined that.
Lopez's attorney, David Schieck, told the court that Lisle was a "cold-blooded killer" and Loehrer should have granted separate trials for the two men.
Lisle, according to Schieck, had been branded as a "Poster Child for Crimes R Us." He said Lisle, with tattoos on his face, presented the jury with a picture of a cold-blooded murderer.
Lopez claimed he didn't know Lisle was going to kill Lusch because of a drug deal gone bad. Lopez said he was in the front seat of the car and saw through the rear-view mirror that Lisle was going to shoot the victim.
Schieck said had a separate trial been granted, his client Lopez could have introduced evidence that Lisle acted alone in the other killing. He said that could have established that Lopez had nothing to do with the subsequent Lusch killing.
"We couldn't tell the jury the truth," Schieck said, referring to the ruling that stopped introduction into evidence the other killing.
Seaton argued that the same evidence would have been presented at both trials. He said it was Lopez who had the pistol in his pants and then gave it to Lisle.
Lopez, Seaton said, was a conspirator in the killing. "It's laughable that he now argues he got the short shrift."
Lopez was quoted as saying after the killings that Lisle "smoked him (Lusch) in the back. We did it good. There is nothing to worry about."
archive
