Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010 | 8:35 a.m.
Sun archives
- 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)
- Detective: Erik Scott had pain medicines from several doctors (9-27-10)
- Witnesses give conflicting accounts of Costco police shooting (9-25-10)
- Shoppers recount police shooting outside Costco (9-24-2010)
- Officer in Costco shooting says man raised gun, didn't know it was in holster (9-23-2010)
- Inquest testimony focuses on Erik Scott’s use of prescription drugs (9-22-10)
- Woman says fiance had his hands up when shot by police (8-20-10)
- Vegas police study policy after drug raid slaying (8-4-10)
In what was the highest attended Coroner’s Inquest Review Panel since the first meeting Oct. 18, members of the panel seemed to agree that, like having a verdict, having a jury is not necessary for a coroner’s inquest.
Last week, members of the panel reacted positively to the idea of not having a verdict during the inquest process. On Monday night, that idea was reinforced but with it came a discussion on what exactly the jury would find and if there would even be a need for a jury.
Some panel members thought that without a verdict, a jury or “panel” would exist to seek out facts specific to each case, referred to as interrogatories. Some examples of possible interrogatories included, “Who died?” and “Did they die at the hands of police?” Some said the process was essentially pointless since the decision to prosecute is ultimately in the hands of the district attorney.
“Why are we having a jury decide if they died at the hands of police if that’s why they’re here in the first place? I’m not sure if the panel adds anything other than confusion as a perceived voice of the public when they don’t actually get to say anything or decide anything,” Richard Boulware of the NAACP said.
Chairman and UNLV professor Christopher Blakesley, Margaret McLetchie of the ACLU and Chris Collins, executive director for the Police Protective Association, agreed with Boulware.
“I think the jury should go,” Collins said. “Originally I said that they should have a jury so that the public did have someone there to ask questions on their behalf. But maybe that is the confusing part of the system.”
Members of the panel also discussed having an attorney for the family of the deceased present during a pre-inquest conference.
The conference would have a presiding officer – most likely an active judge – who would oversee that all interested parties get access to evidence beforehand. This conference would also be the time when the inquest would be scheduled.
Having attorneys cross-examine witnesses and police officers during the inquest proceeding was a point of contention, as it has been in previous meetings of the review panel.
“It is going to be adversarial with two attorneys up there, no doubt about it,” Collins said. “That adversarial confrontation can come later in depositions, in federal court, in wherever.”
As an alternative to an inquest process with two attorneys, Collins offered up an option that the district attorney, along with the coroner and the detectives who worked the case, announce to interested parties why they decided to prosecute or not to prosecute.
“If it’s the district attorney’s job to decide prosecution or not, let the district attorney present the facts that were gathered and make his case,” Collins said.
Another point of sharp debate came when deciding how police officers involved in shooting deaths should be investigated. McLetchie suggested to Sheriff Doug Gillespie that it might be beneficial for Metro Police to have another organization handle the investigation of officer-involved shootings.
Gillespie and Collins were weary of the idea, with Collins saying Metro homicide detectives were more than capable of investigating homicides. Boulware’s response in a sense called out Metro Police, saying that the public perception is that they cannot police themselves.
“That’s part of people’s anger here,” Boulware said. “It’s not simply one or two shootings, it’s the idea that there is a pattern that relates to the police department, whether it’s true or not.”
Many of Boulware’s statements during the review elicited applause from the 50 to 60 members of the audience, a rare reaction in the last two meetings.
However, the biggest applause may have come during public comment from Jim Duensing, a man who was shot three times in the back by an officer, and from Evie Oquendo, the mother of Tanner Chamberlain, who was shot and killed by Metro police.
“Read your constitutions. You are not above the law. If a public servant commits an act while on duty ... they have a legal obligation to defend their action,” Duensing said.
He also suggested that the inquest process remain the same, except that the public defender’s office does the questioning and the investigation.
Oquendo said the district attorney should not bring up a person’s history and “do a character assassination of the deceased.” She also pointed out that when officers shot her son, she was only a few inches away from being the victim.
“When my son was fatally shot in the head, I was directly in front of him,” Oquendo said. “If the officer had missed by inches, I could have been the one fatally shot. Tactically, there should have been better options.”
The recommendations of the panel will be presented to the commission Nov. 16 and the commission will vote Dec. 7.
UA the officers involved. There's steroid abuse and that's no secret.
Chunky says:
The problem is people want to try the case during the inquest. That forces the inquest process to defend the officers actions.
It's fair to bring up a victim's past as long as you can bring up the officer's past.
As well, Chunky is okay with drug testing of officers who are involved in shootings, accidents and incidents where a victim is killed or seriously injured.
That's what Chunky thinks!
Comment removed by moderator. Repetitive comment.
Just give Gillespie and Rogers a big rubber stamp that says "justified" and move along. we're wasting time and effort in this affront to "justice".
"Some said the process was essentially pointless since the decision to prosecute is ultimately in the hands of the district attorney."
And therein lies the root of the public's problem -- a District Attorney who through an established pattern of policies, procedures, processes and politics refuses to initiate criminal charges against law enforcement personnel who utilize lethal force in an irresponsible murderous manner upon a citizenry they're tasked to protect creating an environment hazardous to public safety while flaunting the meaning of justice.
: {
@ Harley..... Rogers is endorsed by police so he's not likely to rock their boat very much. Americans once again held hostage in the "land of the free".
and to think --- people in this town are okay with the COSTCO murder --- even though there were 50 or 80 innocents in the small area where some of the country's worst shots ever were discharging their firearms.
unbelievable.
> And they are.
apparently you didn't listen to the COSTCO murder inquest.
The method that we used to come up with a pre-determined verdict doesn't really matter. The standard for a justified shoot is very simple. The officer must, at any time during the inquest, say "I was afraid for..." As long as an coroner's jury hears those words then then a justifiable finding is certain. If the officer were to ever state, "I meant to kill that guy," or "I made a huge error in judgement and looking back I should have never fired," then we might get a different outcome. But whatever the truth, even a honest man faced with losing his job or criminal charges, will utter that simple phrase to save his future. And since Metro is far from populated with honest men, do you ever think we will hear anything but what they know will get them off. The don't have to see a weapon, they don't even have to react the way anyone of us would in the same situation. They only have to tell how scared they were. The Yant inquest showed us that facts don't matter. Just consider the words of Mark LePage, foreman of the coroner's jury that exonerated Officer Bruce Gentner after he shot a man armed with only a basketball. He said he believed the jury had to find the shooting justified after receiving the hearing officer's instructions. "I think you need to change the law" -- so officers cannot shoot suspects until certain the individual poses a threat to their or an innocent party's safety -- "because it is wrong." If the system makes a juror walk away feeling justice wasn't done, then it wasn't done. But as long as Gillespie and Roger would rather arrest or prosecute innocent civilians rather than guilty cops, we are all at risk.
"The panel to investigate the inquest process, included Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie, District Attorney David Roger, a police union representative, a professor and lawyers." Of course Roger is on the panel, as the decision will occur after the election. Where was he hiding during the inquest? The people are supposed to trust the decision as to whether criminal charges should be filed solely to David Roger? Are you kidding me? SHERIFF AND DA With regard to the Coroners Inquests, it's about instructions to the jury regarding "INTENT", and it is a mockery of justice. Make no mistake about it, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer is DAVID ROGER our District Attorney. Crime is not down as his commercial states, and the only reason he can state that he wins cases he prosecutes is because he is the king of plea deals. David rarely litigates, unless it is politically advantageous to him, i.e. O.J. Simpson. And then there is all the deals made to those who have contributed generously to his campaign(s), i.e. Paris Hilton, Strip clubs, convicted felons, i.e. Galardi and Rizzolo, and the attorneys who represent them. Follow the money. Ask yourself if David Roger felt O.J. Simpson was important enough for him to litigate personally, why not the recent Eric Scott inquest. David was HIDING, and allowing the Sheriff to dodge those bullets. Both Gillespie and Roger need to GO.
North Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Stephen Dahl said 20 percent of people arrested for felonies and gross misdemeanors in his city go unpunished for want of a deputy district attorney. "We dismiss a lot of cases," he said, and there is a price to pay. This fiscal year, 2,625 felony arrestees were charged in North Las Vegas. Dahl said 539 were dismissed. Most of them, he said, were dismissed "pursuant to statute," meaning the state failed to meet deadlines, such as holding a plea hearing for a detained person within 72 hours, or a probable cause review within 48 hours. Dahl recounted the case of Nahshun Lomax, 35, who shot to death 31-year-old Tamequa Williams and then himself in late April after he was released from jail on a domestic violence charge. "He had already been in prison and had other violent cases pending, but the case was dismissed," said Dahl, "because no charges were filed. That weekend he killed her and then himself." http://lvlegalnews.com/courts/2905.html
@ ACSLATER---Exactly why do you think my father deserves to be shot? It must be nice to to have a family that doesn't have to take any prescription medications. Cabazitaxel is my dad's last hope to survive prostate cancer but if he takes it you feel he should just be executed? When a policefficer is injured on the job, will you be the one to pull the trigger as soon as they slip those pain meds in his IV?
Why is it ok to badger and try to dig up dirt on people whos testimony points towards unjustified, yet the cops are afraid to answer questions from anyone other than the cop friendly District Attorney? Why is it that the Erik Scott inquest spent 3 days of testimony on his prescription medication history, yet Chris Collins arguement for not drug testing officers after a shoot is because we will only find prescription medications? The instructions to the jury made the whole inquest process pointless. It didn't matter what anyone said as long as the cop thought their was a threat, even if there was not.Anyone else notice how at the end of the Erik Scott inquest they "randomly" kicked out the two jurors who were actually asking good questions of the actions taken? How were they randomly chosen? Did they draw straws or picked out a police hat? If a cop is too scared to answer questions from anyone other than the law enforcement endorsed D.A.'s office then fine, plead the 5th and let the facts actually speak for themselves. The police are capable of policing themselves huh? The inquest is fine huh? Cmon guys don't mess up their perfect winning streak record of 200 justified verdicts in a row. Don't you worry though, the people of Las Vegas should not lose faith because the police can police our own police. And if you don't like the laws then they will form another panel, made up mostly of police and police protective agencies and police endorsed District Attorneys and they will police how the police police the police.