Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

sponsored by
News


CORRECTION
A story published in Thursday’s Review-Journal incorrectly stated James Carter Jr. was found guilty of robbery with a deadly weapon. He was found guilty of robbery.

Teen acquitted in slaying that led to LV police shooting

Jurors find defendant guilty of other charges

James Carter Jr. didn't look like a murder defendant while sitting at the defense table in District Court.

At 5 foot 5 inches tall and weighing about 100 pounds, Carter, dressed in a suit and dress shirt, looked more like a scrawny boy dressed up for church instead of the accused in a high-profile murder case.


Most Popular Stories
  • Traffic accident claims life of longtime, successful lawyer
  • TRAFFIC STOP: Shooting accounts conflict
  • One motorcyclist killed, another critically injured in accident
  • NORM: Buchanan called 'larger than life'
  • THE FACES OF JOBLESSNESS: Family had to get help for first time
  • NORM: Marie Osmond, manager battling
  • Nurseries fence out day laborers
  • Second person dies after being restrained by police
  • NORM: Agassi reveals bad vibes with Shields
  • North Las Vegas motorcyclist killed in collision while racing, police say




  • But authorities said Carter, 18, killed Kyle Staheli and torched his body in 2006. Carter is alleged to have acted with Swuave Lopez, a 17-year-old who was later shot and killed by Las Vegas police.

    Even District Judge Sally Loehrer remarked that a jury would have a hard time convicting Carter because "this kid looks like he's about 12."

    In the end, she was right.

    After deliberating for about six hours, a jury found Carter not guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder in connection with Staheli's slaying. The jury also acquitted Carter of kidnapping and conspiracy to commit kidnapping charges.

    But Carter isn't a free man. The jury found Carter guilty of robbery with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit robbery, possession of a stolen vehicle and possession of stolen property charges.

    Carter, who did not visibly react when the verdict was returned, is scheduled to be sentenced on Aug. 27.

    Carter's attorney, Conrad Claus, said his client never should have been charged with murder.

    "This was overcharged in the first place because Metro was covering up a bad shoot. The jury recognized that," he said.

    Several jurors said they didn't believe Carter was directly involved in Staheli's killing. Although Carter was with Lopez when Lopez shot and killed Staheli, jurors said they didn't think Carter was aware it was going to happen.

    "He didn't even know," juror Don Magill said of Carter.

    Prosecutors asked jurors to hold Carter responsible for the slaying under the felony murder rule. This rule states that even though Carter did not pull the trigger, he was still responsible for the death because it occurred during the commission of another felony, primarily the robbery.

    But throughout the trial Carter was described as borderline mentally retarded, someone who did not have the capacity to help plan and carry out the killing.

    This is the second time Carter has stood trial on the murder charge. In March 2007, District Judge Lee Gates declared a mistrial when a jury couldn't reach a verdict after 31/2 days of deliberating.

    Authorities said Lopez and Carter planned to rob Staheli, 18, of his 1996 Ford Mustang and kill him. On May 10, 2006, Lopez and Carter drove with Staheli to the base of Sunrise Mountain. Once there, Lopez shot Staheli three times, killing him. Carter then drove Lopez home in Staheli's Mustang.

    The pair returned to the crime scene the next day and burned Staheli's body, authorities said.

    Several days after Staheli was killed, Las Vegas police arrested Carter and Lopez. Lopez, who was in the back seat of a police car, got free and fled. Two Las Vegas police detectives shot Lopez in the back while he was fleeing, killing him.

    A Clark County coroner's jury later found the two detectives acted justifiably when they killed Lopez in the shooting.

    Staheli's family, who attended the trial, declined to comment after the jury delivered the verdict.

    Nicole Lise, another juror, said she felt sorry for Staheli's family but she and other jurors had "reasonable doubt" about Carter's guilt.

    "We definitely felt for Kyle's family because it was awful. Our verdict doesn't negate the fact that something awful happened and a terrible crime occurred," she said. "But our job was to figure out whether James Carter Jr. was involved."

    Contact reporter David Kihara at dkihara@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-1039.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 36 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    what? wrote on July 20, 2008 07:03 PM: Another classic example of how a jury can be swayed by a person. We judge people on appearance, so he looks like he's 12, he walks? Some trials should be conducted with the jury not seeing the accused, to prevent sympathy. Regardless, he's guilty of accessory to murder anyhow. What 15 years? He will be in his mid 30's, unless early release. In 5 years he will be 24, early release, allowed to rejoin society. He was driving? Well then he's just as guilty, even as an accessory on all charges.


    Report abuse

    Michael wrote on July 18, 2008 11:21 AM: Brendan,

    Again, check the law. The "Blanket" Fleeing Felon law was changed in the 1970's. However, it is still JUSIFIED to use deadly force to stop a person fleeing when the issue involves the following:

    1. National Security (Nuclear Technology, Espionage, etc.)
    2. To stop someone immediately engaged in force which could cause grevious bodily injury or death.
    3. Or to STOP a person fleeing (handcuffs or not) who is BELIEVED to have committed a crime whihc inflicted grevious bodily injury or death.

    Lopez fits number 3. Shooting justified. End of discussion.

    Do what police tell you to do when theytell you to do it and no one gets shot!


    Report abuse

    To Brendan wrote on July 18, 2008 08:17 AM: Brenden--you have the right to use this platform to expouse your sentiments about bad cops or the establishment, but do you realize what you are saying to the majority of honest police, DAs and judges who work hard everyday to protect us?

    Get off your soap box and deal with the majority--the good guys who put their lives on the line every day for people like you and me. Read the records--the shooting was justified, Lopez wriggled his hands to the front and started to run. Just because he hadn't been convicted of the crime they were trying to arrest him for doesn't mean the police shouldn't protect citizens like you and me in harms way from a a man who had just been recently released from prison and had served time for something else he was invloved in before he did this,

    In respect to those who have been tragically affected by Lopez and Carter's criminal acts--get off your soap box!


    Report abuse

    Brendan Perez wrote on July 18, 2008 01:49 AM: If people are still unhappy with the fact that Carter was found not guilty of the murder and you believe he was an equal part of it, blame the prosecutor for failing to convince the jury, him and his lawyer for lying about his involvement and finally, blame the detectives for shrouding this case in doubt and controversy by shooting the accused co-defendant in the back.

    See, that last part may have played a bigger part than some of you are willing to admit.

    It's not new-prosecutors have tried to "throw the book" at people in the past as a way to divert attention away from bad acts by cops, judges, prosecutors, etc.

    Whenever it's convenient for them to say so, cops claim they're regular people too. Well, we know from first hand experience that not all regular people are good, honest, trustworthy, have integrity, etc. It would follow that there are some in the police force that lack those same qualities.

    Before you go blindly asserting that every cop is , honest, trustworthy, restrained, and law abiding and that all one have to do is comply, imagine what you would do when you run into a cop who is not any of those things.
    How many people have been raped/murderded/beaten/robbed even after doing everything they were told?

    The dangerous thing here is this unwavering belief that the police are always right and the suspects in custody are always wrong.

    Imagine if shooting running suspects becomes acceptable-what happens to someone who turns around while talking to a bad/marginal cop? Does the cop get away with saying you were running and he was justified in shooting?

    In short, everything you support the police doing to Lopez could be done to you or I by a bad cop.


    Report abuse

    Brendan Perez wrote on July 18, 2008 01:36 AM: Who's defending or sympathizing with Suave Lopez?
    I'm not saying I agree with anything he did, anything he's accused of doing, and anything he didn't do.

    My problem is solely with the fact that he was shot in the back while unarmed and handcuffed.

    As far as I can see, it's no different then the police shooting someone in handcuffs because he refuses to stand up or sit down.

    Whether you all like it or not, accused people have rights too. We cannot just "let the gloves come off" so to speak because someone is accused of committing a heinous crime. If accused criminals don't have rights, none of us do because it takes very little to be accused of a crime.

    The police should have tackled him and brought him back. Then he would get to stand trial for what he did.

    It's entirely possible, that he would have confessed and he and Carter would have both been found guilty of murder. But, he was killed and (truth or not) Carter was able to convince the jury he had nothing to do with the murder.
    The jury is not the only one responsible for a verdict-both sides' attorneys are as well. If Carter as responsible as Lopez, then the prosecutor failed to convince the jury.

    This idea that juries are always required to find every person guilty is another disturbing idea. It's always claimed to be a bad/weak jury when they find someone "not guilty" of a crime. Why? Do the police and prosecution never make mistakes? Plenty of people have been freed by DNA evidence.

    Carter was still found guilty of robbery, conspiracy, possession of stolen property and stolen vehicle. There's plenty of room to sentence to 25+ years in those four charges.


    Report abuse

    Barbie wrote on July 18, 2008 01:20 AM: When one gets acquittedof murder it will take only a short amount of time befor one tries to perfect that same crime. As in his height just give him a short time as this jury will soon be asking themselves how they ever acquitted this warm being.As he will re-offend Just a feeling that I have!


    Report abuse

    rjC wrote on July 17, 2008 11:33 PM: To This was a weak jury- Your husband also protects and had fought for Brendan's right to say what he wants. Remember, this is a free country. Also, under islamic law, muslims would never let a wife speak as you did, let alone published in a public forum. I know, I've been there and observed their oppression of freedoms. On the other hand, Brendan would have been beheaded for his anti-establishment
    opinions hours ago.


    Report abuse

    Kim wrote on July 17, 2008 08:56 PM: I think this is bullshit I think he should have been convicted of something....he was there he helped cover it up. Even though he wasnt the one that pulled the trigger he was still present. He helped burn MY FRIENDS BODY!!! Where is the justice in that?

    Where is the 2nd degree murder, manslaughter...something??? All he is going to be charged with is stealing Kyle's Mustang you have got to be kidding me!!!!!


    Report abuse

    This was a weak jury wrote on July 17, 2008 08:17 PM: Brendan, do me a favor and never dial 911. I do not want my husband to put his life on the line for someone like you!
    My husband that I am very proud of is a Police Officer. He is the bravest man I have ever met. He is honest and takes pride in his work over the past 15 years. It would take me all night to list all his accomplishments.
    Prior to becoming a Police Officer he served the Country you are living in. 8 years in the Marine Corp. He fought in 2 wars for you.
    What have you done for society other then insult good hard working people?
    How could you even defend someone that steals, kills and goes back the next day to set the body on fire?
    I think you need therapy!


    Report abuse

    CJ wrote on July 17, 2008 07:15 PM: Wow Brendan, way to go on sympathizing with the victim. Congrats on being so empathetic. Now let's float on down to reality for a minute and pretend that bad guys in police custody might actually be guilty. Here's some quality advice for those that are handcuffed and in police custody, don't run, guilty or otherwise. Why is that so complicated?


    Read All Comments