© 1998-2015 The Justice Institute -- (Justice Denied is a trade name of The Justice Institute)

© 1998-2016 The Justice Institute -- (Justice Denied is a trade name of The Justice Institute)

Jurors Support A New Trial For Kirstin Blaise Lobato


In December 2010 every juror for Kirstin Blaise Lobato’s 2006 trial who could be located was contacted by Justice Denied as part of its ongoing investigation into her case. In addition to being asked general questions about their impressions of Ms. Lobato’s trial, the jurors were asked if they were willing to review a summary of new evidence in Ms. Lobato’s case and evaluate if it likely would have affected the jury’s deliberations and verdict.1

Two of the jurors have provided signed documents stating, “I believe that if the jury in 2006 had known Ms. Lobato’s new evidence it could have influenced the jury’s deliberations, and it could have resulted in either a hung jury or Ms. Lobato’s acquittal.” And, “I believe it is in the interest of justice that Ms. Lobato be granted a new trial.”


Click here to read the Statement of Thomas Ciciliano.


Click here to read the Affidavit of Lloyd Taylor.


These juror affirmations that Ms. Lobato should be granted a new trial in the interests of justice are significant for two reasons:


1. The legal standard that must be met for the granting of a new trial to Ms. Lobato is that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would convict her if they considered the new evidence in her case, whether that new evidence is considered individually or cumulatively.2 The jurors in Ms. Lobato’s case were deemed to be considered reasonable people when they were selected to sit on her jury, and they believe that if the jurors had known the new evidence it could have resulted in her acquittal .


2. The Clark County District Attorney’s Office stated in its Response to Ms. Lobato’s habeas corpus petition that even considering the new evidence in Ms. Lobato’s case “... there is no reasonable question of Defendant’s guilt.” (39). That statement obviously has no basis in reality because two of the jurors who voted to convict her are convinced that the new evidence is so compelling that if the jurors had known that new evidence it could have resulted in her acquittal or a hung jury, and that consequently she should be granted a new trial.


Endnote:

1 “New Evidence Kirstin Blaise Lobato Is Innocent Of Any Involvement In The Death Of Duran Bailey In Las Vegas, Nevada On July 8, 2001,” Prepared by Hans Sherrer/Justice Denied, December 12, 2010.

2 Ms. Lobato filed a state habeas corpus petition in the Clark County District Court on May 5, 2010, that includes 21 grounds of new evidence that support the granting of a new trial to her based on the standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court that, “it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the new evidence presented in habeas proceedings.” Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327, 115 S.Ct. 851, 867 (1995).



© 1998-2015 The Justice Institute -- (Justice Denied is a trade name of The Justice Institute)

© 1998-2016 The Justice Institute -- (Justice Denied is a trade name of The Justice Institute)