By Michael Raponi, Carson City
For long-time Carson City resident Kim McKew, the long road to justice in the nine-year-old murder case of her daughter Sierra Ceccarelli got that much longer. The mystery is why the case, on the brink of finally going to trial first last March and then in September, was postponed yet again—this time until April 19, 2027.
Ceccarelli was 29 years-old and the mother of two young girls when she was shot to death in December 2016 in the Reno home of Robert Paul Eikelberger, who she knew. Eikelberger has always been the lone suspect in the case and was arrested in 2018 by the Reno Police Department on an open murder charge.
Due to a potential conflict of interest involving a familial relationship between Washoe County District Attorney Chris Hicks and Eikelberger’s family, the case was transferred to Lyon County, whereupon Eikelberger was released because the county was not ready to file charges. Eikelberger was arrested again in 2022 based on a grand-jury indictment, but soon after was released on $1 million bail.
The result? Despite the overwhelming evidence against him, Eikelberger has spent less than a week in jail—going about his business as a free man for nine years since the day of the crime. Meanwhile, McKew has felt like she is the one imprisoned—her hands tied with the knowledge her daughter was murdered while facing a legal system that seems more intent on protecting the accused than the victim’s family.
This is not to diminish the protections due those accused of a capital offense. But the fact this case will not go to trial until more than a decade after the crime is a travesty, especially considering the timeline for other capital cases and the preponderance of evidence in this one.
And the case smacks of conspiracy. A homicide occured in the home of the sole suspect while the suspect was home; the suspect was caught in a web of lies about his relationship with the victim and the scene of the crime; suicide was ruled out by the coroner; forensic tests proved gun residue was on the suspect’s person; and the case was transferred from one county to another whereupon the suspect was promptly released from custody. All this while the victim’s mother has received no legitimate explanation for the trial delays. She’s in the dark.
Then there is this puzzling twist: In the spring of 2020, while diligently covering the story, Joe Hart of KRNV News 4 in Reno received a visit in his office from two people representing the district attorney in Reno. The purpose of the visit? To urge Hart to keep the D.A.’s office out of the story as they declared a conflict of interest and insisted their office was no longer involved after that point. Hart described the meeting as “tense.” And yes, he gave me the go-ahead to put this in print.
I wrote about the case in another publication last April following a peaceful protest organized by McKew in downtown Carson City, the purpose of which was to bring attention to a hearing going before the Nevada Supreme Court. At that time, Washoe County Judge Kathleen Drakulich, exasperated by the string of delays by Eikelberger’s counsel in bringing the case to trial, held firm to the set trial date of March 31, 2025. Drakulich’s action on the matter was not rash: The trial was originally to take place in April 2024, then delayed to October 2024, and then delayed once again to March 2025. When the defense wanted to delay the trial another six months, the judge refused.
That is why Washoe County Alternate Public Defender Kate Hickman petitioned the Supreme Court in December 2024 to stay the pending trial date of March 31. As part of the petition, Hickman claimed that due to a heavy work load more time was needed to properly prepare for the case. In the petition, she reported that she and her staff could be ready for trial in September 2025.
But even September 2025 was not to be. In a response to “show cause” filed with the Supreme Court last June, the defendant’s counsel claimed that September, October, and November 2025 were no longer available for the trial. This just six months after the original petition sought September 2025 as a period for the trial to go forth.
Since the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, the case was referred back to the district court and the trial date was finally set for April 2027, or three years after the original trial date. Or, ten years and five months after the crime. But why has the date been pushed out so far, especially since the system has already done backflips to give counsel the time it needs to prepare? Some legal experts argue that critical cases like these cannot be rushed.
Rushed? When evidence includes the defendant, Eikelberger, claiming soon after the crime that Ceccarelli was an unknown sex worker who somehow entered his house and shot herself, even though surveillance footage showed him shopping with her the day of her murder and suicide was ruled out. Or the extraordinary number of times the victim frantically tried to call 911 immediately prior to her shooting. Or the gun residue found on Eikelberger’s person. Or, as mentioned above, the fact there has never been another suspect in the case.
All McKew wants is for the case to go forward, so the evidence can be presented at a fair trial. The prosecutors in Lyon County are ready for the trial to take place. But, evidently, three years from the original trial date is what the defense needs to ensure a clear calendar and that Eikelberger’s rights are not violated.
The road to justice for Kim McKew has been incredibly arduous, and hopefully this latest setback will be the last. But don’t count on it. This could easily be a set-up for yet more delays for a trial that should have happened years ago.
Michael Raponi may be contacted at michael.raponi@outlook.com
Interested in having your voice heard? We want to hear from you!
Learn how to submit an Opinion Piece or a Letter to the Editor.
