Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleCounty Commission OKs changes to coroner’s inquest process
Assistant District Attorney Chris Owens, left, Clark County Coroner Mike Murphy, center, Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent, right, confer during the second day of the coroner’s inquest for Erik Scott at the Regional Justice Center September 23, 2010.
Published Tuesday, Dec. 7, 2010 | 2:17 p.m.
Updated Tuesday, Dec. 7, 2010 | 7:45 p.m.
Sun archives
- Commissioners outline concerns of proposed inquest changes (11-16-2010)
- County commission to hear board’s suggestions for inquest changes (11-16-2010)
- Coroner’s inquest review panel proposes changes (11-8-2010)
- Coroner’s inquest review panel weighs scrapping jury, verdict (11-2-2010)
- Inquest panel considers removing verdict from process (10-25-2010)
- Public critical of inquest process at review panel’s first meeting (10-19-2010)
- Group to propose changes to coroner’s inquest process (10-5-2010)
- Police officers found justified in Erik Scott shooting; family plans lawsuit (9-28-2010)
- Vegas police study policy after drug raid slaying (8-4-10)
Clark County commissioners on Tuesday approved major changes to the coroner’s inquest process that looks into deaths caused by police officers.
Commissioners voted 4-2 to support changes recommended by a 10-member panel that looked into the process last month.
Commissioners Larry Brown and Steve Sisolak voted against the ordinance. Commissioner Tom Collins was absent.
Most of nearly three hours of public testimony on the changes was focused on the addition of an ombudsperson to represent the decedent’s family during the inquest hearings, and Brown and Sisolak said they supported all of the changes except the ombudsperson.
Police officers and their union representatives said they wouldn’t participate in the inquests if the ombudsperson was present because it would make the proceedings adversarial.
Other major parts of the ordinance include changing the term “jury” to “inquest panel,” defining when an inquest should be held and eliminating the verdict.
Brown said he wasn’t comfortable making the process more adversarial and not having officers participate. He said he wished the panel had discussed other ways to make the process more inclusive.
He also said he was open to considering eliminating the district attorney’s office from the process, something District Attorney David Roger suggested in a panel meeting but that was rejected.
Sisolak said he wasn’t comfortable with an ombudsman and wished the panel had taken more time to consider the issue.
But Sisolak moved to create the panel and set the four-meeting timeline so that the commission could act before its members changed after November’s election.
Commissioner Lawrence Weekly questioned Sisolak’s comments, saying that it was time to move forward.
After hearing public comments and nearly an hour of discussion among the commissioners, Commission Chair Rory Reid wrapped things up with a passionate speech supporting the ordinance.
Reid, who leaves the board in a few weeks after losing his gubernatorial bid in November, said he had heard talk about problems with inquests for the eight years he has been a commissioner, and this is the second time the commission has voted on major changes to the process.
He said this was the best opportunity the commission would have to improve the inquest process.
“We need to change this system because if we don’t, we’ll look back and regret that we missed this opportunity,” Reid said.
The inquest process has long had opponents, but two recent police shootings increased public attention on the issue.
A Metro Police officer shot Trevon Cole in his apartment bathroom June 11 while officers executed a search warrant. Cole was unarmed at the time; the officer was found justified in the death by a coroner’s inquest jury Aug. 21.
Erik Scott was shot July 10 outside the Summerlin Costco after store staff called police. Police said Scott pulled a gun on officers, but Scott’s family said he was handing his gun to officers. The three officers were found justified by a coroner’s inquest jury Sept. 28.
After the Scott inquest, county commissioners began considering changes to the inquest process. Commissioners formed a panel to return with suggestions to county commissioners.
The panel was made up of a retired state Supreme Court justice, and a member from the ACLU, the NAACP, Metro Police, the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office and the police union. It also included the coroner, a UNLV law professor and a Hispanic community representative.
The committee approved a proposed ordinance Nov. 8, which became the basis of Tuesday’s commission decision.
Commissioners made minor changes to the ordinance to further define the purpose of the inquest. Because of the changes, the ordinance will be on the board’s agenda for the next meeting in two weeks.
Public comments before the vote were mixed, with a number of people supporting the changes and a number of police officers opposing them.
Former state Sen. Joe Neal strongly supported the changes. “I think it goes a long way in solving some of the problems that you find with the coroner’s inquest process,” he said.
Sheriff Doug Gillespie said he also supported the changes. He told commissioners not to worry about finding answers to every question about how things will work under the new system. The coroner and county manager need flexibility to deal with each situation, he said.
Chris Collins, executive director for the Police Protective Association, which represents many of Gillespie’s officers, adamantly argued against the changes. Collins was one of two panel members who voted against the suggested changes.
Rather than make the process more open, the changes would shut it down because officers will not participate, he said. “There is no process if the officers do not participate,” he said.
Collins said he would be happy to see the inquest process done away with, but he could live with all of the changes except the addition of the ombudsperson.
“The police officers in your community have no fear of standing up for what they’ve done, they simply want to be treated fairly and without prejudice,” he said.
Following Collins’ comments, Maggie McLetchie, an ACLU of Nevada attorney, said the ombudsperson was the most important part of the changes. McLetchie was also a member of the panel.
If there is no representation for the family, commissioners should do as Collins said and do away with the inquest process, McLetchie said.
A number of police officers also spoke, many of them indicating that they have participated in inquests in the past and saying they would invoke their Fifth Amendment right and not participate in any inquests that involve a family representative.
The existing process, they said, was not broken and should not be fixed.
Roger, the district attorney, also spoke against the inquest changes.
“I promise you that it will be adversarial,” he said. “Any time you have multiple attorneys in the courtroom, it’s adversarial.”
The existing inquest process is the best in the country, Roger said.
In their discussion, several commissioners said the proposals weren’t perfect, but it was a good starting point.
Sisolak hit on the comments by Collins and McLetchie, saying the only time the ACLU and the police union agreed was when discussing eliminating the inquest altogether.
“Maybe we should end it,” Sisolak said. “Maybe that’s something there is an appetite for.”
But the majority of his colleges disagreed and approved the changes.
Reid pointed out that the commissioners meet every two weeks and if they decide the ombudsperson or something else with the inquest process isn’t working, they can change it again.
Discussion: 1 comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Three dreams come true for Flamingo headliner Marie Osmond
- MGM results improve on Las Vegas Strip spending, China growth
- Federal agents join probe into fire at site of future Islamic funeral home
- Strip Scribbles: Shania Twain in town planning Caesars Palace residency
- Judge tosses out suit challenging motorcycle helmet law enforcement
- 15-month-old toddler tests positive for hallucinogenic drug
- Construction project — possibly for a mosque — damaged by fire
- Henderson man pleads guilty to kidnapping 7-year-old girl
- Mother left 3-year-old twins, 5-year-old alone prior to fire, Metro Police charge
- Highs to hit low 70s in Las Vegas
Blogs
The Kats Report
Post it: House of Blues tuning up for a Santana residency
In pursuing a tribute to Frank Sinatra, Robert Davi is no bad actor
High School Sports Scene
High School Basketball State Championship Picks
The Kats Report
Oscar Goodman goes Shecky as Mob Museum opening prompts a mob scene (2 Comments)
Elsewhere
MGM Resorts, Ameristar form marketing alliance to draw visitors
High School Sports Scene
High School Hoops Picks: Updated with Friday's regional finals (3 Comments)
The Kats Report
What a Whitney Houston residency in Las Vegas might have looked like (5 Comments)
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
God forbid someone challenge a police officer after they've decided to use deadly force. What a crock Gillespie.
Fire the cops that don't go. I could care less if it's adverserial. If you kill someone the least you should do is justify your actions.
Sheriff Gillespie supports the changes. Will he order the officers to participate? Will the officer's supervisor order the officer to participate? When an officer is given an order by a supervisor, that officer has to obey that order or be brought up on charges of disregarding a direct order.
If the officers are not required to participate, the whole process is just another dog and pony show.
The American legal system is adversarial by design - and any police officer that refuses to participate in the process should resign from the law enforcement profession! I was really offended that Chris Collins tried to bully the public with his blatant threat to refuse to cooperate with the changes being advanced by the people using their political power legally!
Everyone has a right to a defense, and everyone has the right to take the 5th Amendment when it applies to unfair questioning - but, anyone that thinks they don't have to respond to a subpoena, or can show up, but sit in a chair and say nothing but "I take the 5th" - well, then, they just don't understand the law or their rights (and probably shouldn't be a police officer)!
Having said that, I respect the vast majority of our police and every one of our police officers is a citizen that deserves to have their rights as citizens protected too!
The police absolutely should be able to have legal counsel at no expense to themselves if they can not afford an attorney!
Likewise, the family of the deceased have the same right - and the public will benefit from having an Ombudsperson!
Obviously we have some serious concerns regarding the culture of law enforcement in Las Vegas, and some serious training reformations that need to be done in the doctrine of de-escalation, and use of limited, non-lethal force! I supported all the changes, and those County Commissioners that voted in favor continue to hold my confidence and favor!
I'm very disappointed in Commissioner's Brown and Sisolak "No Vote" - and Collins being AWOL never surprises me (he was seen leaving chasing some pretty Rodeo Queens)!
Any cop will tell you that the only ones taking the 5th are the one who are guilty. I can't imagine any of the fine men and women of law enforcement refusing the opportunity to clear their names. What justifies a police shooting is the officer acting out of fear for the lives of him and those around him. If the officer doesn't testify then the panel woudn't have any evidence that the officer acted out of fear. Imagine what the Cole jury would have found if all they had was the forensic evidence that showed that Cole wasn't a threat to Yant. The foreperson admitted Yant's testimony was enough for her to ignore the laws of physics. It's not like any cop is ever going to admit to making a mistake on the stand, so their testimony is already pretty useless.
David Roger had already stated that if his office felt a shooting wasn't justified, he would simply skip the inquest and file charges. He admits that the very act of holding an inquest shows that the DA has already found the shooting justified and that inquest is not a fact finding proceeding at all, but rather an elaborate spectacle aimed at placating the pesky public.
Why would anyone would support a system that allows for questioning by a 3rd party that does not occur anywhere else in a similiar judicial proceeding in our country.
With all our economic and education issues we are finally 1st in the country with something no one else has.
Why,
Rory Reid-Unhappy Cops didn't endorse him??
Chris "G"- Wants to be Lifetime ACLU member??
Susan Brager-Go Figure??
Lawrence Weekly- Only yes vote truly on behalf of his constituents!!
Tom Collins-MIA
And this is what you call good public policy?
@DavidKallas...Why would anyone support a system that allows a cop to murder the innocent and hide behind their badge?
bghs1986,
A little out there with the "murder the innocent" comment.
Murder is premeditated.
In each of the last few officer involved shootings the officers came into contact with the suspects because of the suspects actions.
Agree or disagree with the outcomes the fact remains the officers were put into positions by the suspects to make decisions that today you call "murder".
If Coles wasn't involved in narcotics he never would have encountered officers.
If Scott wasn't, at a minimum, disordelry and destructive, he never would have encountererd officers.
The current system doesn't support cops doing anything.
It provides them with a "voluntary opportunity" to explain to the public why they took the actions they did. Aagree or disagree that's all the inquest is supposed to be.
As a matter of fact when Jon Ralston was raising Scotts drug issue in an interview with ACLU representative Maggie McLetchie even she said the important thing was what the officers saw,did and why.
So unless you are telling me that in every officer involved shooting we have had that the officers predetermined they were going to shoot the suspects they came into contact with you are way out of line with your "murder the innocent" comment.
How many of you keyboard wonders would voluntarily get on a witness stand, give up your constitutional rights and explain your actions under oath if someone was questioning the validity of your deadly actions??
Doesn't sound like hiding to me.
Have a nice day!
@DavidKallas....Most all of the cop shootings we have seen were the sad result of officer's being forced into situations I believe the department has not adequately trained them for. Metro cops are programed to see danger in situations where no actually exists.
However, it was not Cole nor the Scott incidents I am referring to. It can be argued that Metro did everything it could to protect officer George Pease. Pease, who some could argue had the makings of a serial killer, had a habit of killing unarmed homeless men, and in the first half of the 90's he had killed three. He was sent to Laughlin to lay low, only it was there he found himself accused of rape. However, it wasn't until 2004 that Pease committed an act so heinous that Metro could no longer ignore his behavior. Pease's ultimate sin was using a metro gas card for personal use.
And more recently Henderson cop Edward Little was able to kill Ruslan Zhgenti, in Zhgenti's own bedroom. In any other instance the lover of the dead husband's wife would have had a self-defense claim exposed for what it was, murder.
Again bghs1986,
Crimes should be prosecuted by the District Attorneys office not blanket policied by changes to the inquest system.
How you can say the attempts to apprehend a fleeing murder suspect or to disarm a disorderly individual is not a dangerous situation caused by the individual flys in the face of reason.
It is these very people, and others in our society who, by their increasingly violent actions, have caused officers to react the way they have.
Have a nice day!
DavidKallas..."How you can say the attempts to apprehend a fleeing murder suspect or to disarm a disorderly individual is not a dangerous situation?"
I never even suggested anything like that. However there have been plenty of instance where officers perceived a threat when there was none. While I am not advocating punishing these officers for these decisions, I do believe that every officer can learn from them. And that can only make the whole community safer.
What's wrong with our cops learning from these instance so they become better aware of the actual threats threats they face.What's wrong with saving lives, even the lives of criminals? It is the DA's responsibility for prosecuting criminal actions, but David Roger is too much of a coward to ever jeopardize his symbiotic relationship with LE by prosecuting an officer without Permission. It is on Gillespie's shoulders to create an environment within the police force that demands officer never turn a blind eye to officers who are no longer fit to carry a badge.