Who gets to ask questions after deaths?

Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2007 | 7:04 a.m.

After more than a year attempts to change the Clark County coroner's inquest process have stalled again.

The sticking point continues to be whether families of those killed in police shootings should be allowed to question witnesses in front of a jury.

County commissioners will decide today what to do about the deadlock.

Now, immediate family members of the dead or their attorneys must submit written questions for witnesses to the hearing master, who reads them silently and decides whether they should be asked. Only if the hearing master thinks the question is appropriate is it asked aloud.

Civil liberty advocates and the police union - both on the committee the county created in August 2006 to recommend reforms - disagree about whether that part of the proceedings should be changed.

Initially, the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and others wanted family members to be allowed to question witnesses orally.

Since then, however, the ACLU has softened its stance, agreeing to allow an attorney for the family to ask questions through the hearing master. The hearing master then would decide whether the witness should answer the question. If a family member without an attorney wanted to ask questions, he could do so orally outside the presence of a jury.

"That is a big compromise for us," said Gary Peck, executive director of the Nevada ACLU.

The problem, he said, is that "witnesses are not pressed to resolve discrepancies or gaps in their testimony."

If county commissioners adopt that change, the public defender's office has agreed to represent family members during the inquest process.

The Police Protective Association, which represents rank-and-file Metro Police officers, initially opposed any changes to the way family members may question witnesses.

The union fears emotional outbursts might bias a jury. It's also concerned that the inquest might become adversarial, risking an officer's constitutional right against self-incrimination.

"One thing that gets lost in all this is that our officers participate in this process voluntarily," said Chris Collins, executive director of the union. "We don't want to see the day come when our officers start invoking their Fifth Amendment right."

The union has proposed a slight compromise in which family members and their attorneys would still have to ask questions in writing, but questions that are not asked would be read publicly into the record outside the jury's presence. Now, those unasked questions remain part of the public record, but are never disclosed in open court.

Peck said that doesn't go far enough.

The ACLU, the union and other parties are members of a committee the county formed because of an increased number of officer-involved shootings and criticism that the inquest process favors the police. There were 17 inquests last year, up from 10 in 2005.

The committee has agreed to three changes:

There is, however, a new wrinkle to that proposal, according to county documents. Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto has expressed concern, saying her office also works closely with law enforcement. Moreover, her office has an agreement with the district attorney's office to prosecute police officers if an inquest finds an officer acted criminally.

Cortez Masto is not formally opposed to the changes, however. She simply wants to review the proposed changes before committing her office's resources.