Conflict questioned in cop’s case

Bill Gang

Wednesday, May 28, 1997 | 10:48 a.m.

While sex assault charges will go forward against a Metro Police officer, District Judge Don Chairez has questioned whether the district attorney's office should be the prosecuting agency.

Chairez reluctantly decided Tuesday not to kick the district attorney's office off the case against former Officer Michael Ramirez or dismiss the indictment alleging he forced a couple to perform sex acts as he watched.

"I'm troubled about the district attorney's office prosecuting police officers," the judge said. "I think there's an inherent conflict."

He suggested that one deputy district attorney might be prosecuting an officer while another is calling that same officer as a prosecution witness in an unrelated case.

Deputy District Attorney Tom Moreo said that after charges were filed against Ramirez, he no longer was subpoenaed as a witness.

Based on that, Chairez denied the motion by defense attorney Frank Cremen to boot the district attorney's office but questioned whether other cases are getting "second-class treatment because all witnesses are not getting called."

District Attorney Stewart Bell conceded that may be the case some of the time but a bigger problem is going to trial with a witness whose credibility is in doubt.

He said his office is faced with that issue frequently in gang cases where a witness in one case is a defendant in another.

"That doesn't create a conflict," Bell said, adding that the same is true of pursuing lawmen on criminal charges.

"We don't relish our obligation of prosecuting police officers, but it is our statutory obligation and we're not ducking our responsibility," Bell said.

Many times arrests are made by a pair of officers and the second officer can be called to testify if the first has credibility or other problems, he explained.

"If it is a minor case and only one officer is involved, we may just lose the cause," Bell admitted. "If it is a major case and we can't get around a witness problem, we have to call that witness and take our chances.

"Sometimes it becomes a tough sell to a jury."

Although there was no testimony in the Ramirez case that cases weren't being pursued because of his criminal charges, Chairez suggested that the state attorney general's office or a special prosecutor should be the avenue when an officer is indicted.

Bell noted, however, that state statutes give his office the responsibility at this point unless an actual conflict can be shown, and he said none was shown in the Ramirez case.

Ramirez, 27, is facing sex assault and open and gross lewdness charges in addition to a count of oppression under the color of office over the Oct. 4 incident near Red Rock Canyon.

Testimony before a Clark County grand jury alleged that Ramirez, displaying a badge and a gun but not in uniform, approached the couple and fondled the woman after asking suggestive questions.

He then had the man perform oral sex on the woman while he watched, under the threat that they might be framed for a crime if they did not comply, according to grand jury testimony from the 28-year-old man.

After a complaint was filed by the couple with Metro's Internal Affairs Bureau, the man was fitted with a hidden microphone and arrangements were made for him to encounter Ramirez.

Recorded statements by the officer confirming the incident were presented to the grand jury.

The legal issue in Chairez's courtroom involved an interview conducted by Metro detectives with Ramirez after the arranged encounter.

Ramirez told the judge he believed the interview was part of an internal affairs investigation and he had no choice but to cooperate or be fired for insubordination. Metro rules require such participation in internal probes although the interviews cannot be used in subsequent criminal prosecutions under Nevada law.

Cremen argued that Ramirez's indictment should be kicked out because an internal affairs interview was misused. Moreo countered that the interview was conducted by sex assault unit detectives and Ramirez knew it was a criminal probe.

While Chairez said he didn't agree completely with either argument, he decided the charges against Ramirez legally were sound enough to proceed to trial Sept. 15.