Lerlene Roever

Nye County, NV

Shasta Roever

Jan 17, 1993 (Pahrump)

"Shasta" Lerlene Evonne Roever was charged with murdering her live in fiancé, Ian Wilhite, in part because Wilhite was shot with a .22 caliber bullet and she owned a .22 caliber gun, although ballistics soon ruled out her gun. Wilhite had moved to Pahrump from Las Vegas because his life had been threatened there. At trial the key witness and main investigator lied on direct examination and impeached their testimony on cross-examination. Throughout the trial, this investigator fraternized with the jurors in the jurors lounge, not just on the day he testified. His excuse was that it was the only smoking area in the court building. Roever was convicted but the Nevada Supreme Court overturned the conviction and noted, "There was no physical evidence to link the defendant to the crime."

At the second trial Roever insisted on testifying, but her public defender avoided or refused to ask important questions regarding her husband's background and associates. The subject was not even broached. Roever's public defender refused to subpoena anyone on the two-page list of witnesses that she gave him and even insulted her uncle, the only witness that was there for her. This time the DA admitted there was no evidence, so he felt justified in trying her based on whatever stories or opinions his witnesses could fabricate about her.

As an example, one witness testified that Roever had stated she had killed her own mother and a baby. Roever had shared with this witness the story of the drowning death of her mother and the story of the death of her child who was asphyxiated during delivery by his own umbilical cord. Roever had an ex-husband whom she had thrown out years before for lying and stealing; his relatives were there to testify. The ex-husband's mother who once told Roever she was in love with her fiancé (the murder victim) and wished he would be interested in older women, told some tales that Roever hadn't a clue about. Even though the jurors stated their concern about the lack of evidence, Roever was convicted again. Later the Chief Deputy DA argued in his response to the Nevada Supreme Court that ultimately, the truth behind the stories is immaterial. In fact, he said, prosecutors assumed the stories weren't true.

Roever has repeatedly been offered plea bargains which would have allowed her to get out years ago, so maintaining her conviction is a matter of pride for prosecutors rather than a feeling that she must be locked up as a danger to society. (JD02) [6/05]