LAS VEGAS — More than five years after a Las Vegas homeless man was killed and mutilated a jury reached an apparent compromise in holding Kirstin Blaise Lobato accountable for his death.

The jury deliberated for about 10 hours to find Lobato guilty of voluntary manslaughter with use of a deadly weapon and sexual penetration of corpse for murdering and mutilating Duran Bailey on July 8, 2001. The panel could have convicted her of first-degree murder, which would have carried a life sentence. (VIDEO)

Lobato now faces a maximum of eight to 20 years in prison and as little as probation for the voluntary manslaughter conviction. And a mandatory sentence of five to 15 years in prison or five years to life in prison for the sexual penetration of a corpse conviction.

Lobato stood with arms crossed and looked at the jurors in apparent disbelief as they left the courtroom after issuing their verdict.

Soon after Lobato was placed in handcuffs and led out of court to be transported to jail to await her Nov. 21 sentencing date.

Story continues

Prosecutors argued that Lobato, then 18, was on a three-day methamphetamine binge when she ran out of money and drugs. They said she somehow met Bailey and attempted to exchange oral sex for drugs. But when Lobato realized Bailey had no drugs, she stabbed him with a butterfly knife before killing him with an aluminum baseball bat.

After murdering Bailey, prosecutors said, Lobato cut off his penis and stabbed him in the anus.

But by finding Lobato guilty of voluntary manslaughter the jury determined that, although Lobato was provoked and didn't act in malice, she was still accountable for killing Bailey.

Both the prosecution and defense agreed that the jury's decision was a "compromise."

Special Public Defender David Schieck was visibly upset with the verdict and theorized that the jury was deadlocked, but tired, after the four-week trial.

"This jury was done with the case," Schieck said. "There were probably strong opinions on both guilt and innocence in this case and no one would give in so they agreed to pick something in the middle."

Schieck added that, while the verdict was "obviously better than first-degree murder," he believed he had "established she wasn't present at the time Bailey was killed."

Schieck said he believed the testimony of several friends, family members and neighbors in Lobato's hometown of Panaca, Nev., supported Lobato's claim that she was 160 miles North of Las Vegas in her small rural town from July 2 until 1:00 a.m. on July 9.

According to Clark County Medical Examiner Larry Simms Bailey was murdered and mutilated between 9:50 a.m. and 3:50 p.m. on July 8, 2001.

The defense lawyer had also argued that none of the fingerprints, footprints, tire prints, DNA on gum, or pubic hairs recovered from the scene could be traced to Lobato.

Prosecutors based the bulk of their case on Lobato's confessions to her former high school teacher and to police that she mutilated a man in Las Vegas.

Lobato's defense team had argued that she wasn't confessing to murdering Bailey, but instead to defending against a man who was sexually assaulting her on Memorial Day weekend in 2001.

Lobato was previously convicted of first-degree murder in 2002, and later sentenced to 40 to 100 years in prison. The Nevada Supreme Court, however, granted her a new trial in 2004, citing the trial judge's failure to admit evidence that could have weakened the credibility of a jailhouse informant.

The defense lawyer said he will be appealing the verdict.

Prosecutor Bill Kephart said he wasn't happy about the jury's verdict, but he "understood their compromise."

"I'm disappointed that we had to even retry this case to begin with because of the Nevada Supreme Court's opinion," Kephart said. "We have certainly proven that the high court was wrong in stating we had insufficient evidence to convict her."