Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Published Monday, Nov. 8, 2010 | 8:49 p.m.
Updated Tuesday, Nov. 9, 2010 | 2:24 a.m.
Sun archives
- 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)
It took more than five hours Monday night, but members of the Coroner’s Inquest Review Panel voted on recommendations for changes to the coroner’s inquest process.
The suggestions came after four meetings that saw plenty of debate about juries, verdicts and the possible merits and disadvantages of an adversarial process – letting attorneys cross-examine witnesses and police officers.
Perhaps the biggest change came with the panel’s recommendation that an ombudsman for the public and a representative for the police now be able to ask questions during the inquest process. The presiding officer, jury — now named an “inquest panel” -- and District Attorney, acting as a presenter of facts, would still be allowed to ask questions as well.
The recommendation, if approved by the Clark County Commission, would allow cross-examination and effectively change the current process to be more adversarial – something Chris Collins, executive director of the Police Protective Association, Sheriff Doug Gillespie and District Attorney David Roger spoke against.
A motion that would allow attorneys to question witnesses was proposed by ACLU of Nevada attorney Margaret McLetchie, but the vote tied 5-5. Later, the motion was reconsidered and passed 8-2.
Several police officers showed up for a public comment session to warn the board of what could happen if the process turned adversarial.
Officer Michael Ramirez was brief and to the point.
“We are not going to participate if you change it to adversarial,” Ramirez said, then walked back to his seat.
Before the subject arose of attorneys questioning witnesses, Roger proposed a motion that would remove his office from the process entirely, a move that caught many by surprise.
Roger also proposed in the motion that an independent party examine and investigate cases. But by removing his office from the process, prosecutors and investigators would also be removed, laying most of the investigative work on someone else’s shoulders.
Roger said he didn’t feel it would be appropriate for his office to be involved if the process turned adversarial. He also said the public perceived a bias with the DA’s office and the motion would rectify that.
“I believe we are going down a bad path, a path where it’s going to be adversarial. I can’t buy into a lot of these changes,” Roger said.
Collins echoed Roger’s sentiments and added he was displeased that the district attorney wanted to be removed from the process.
“I think it’s a shame that this process is going to become adversarial and it’s a shame and a loss to our community … that the DA has decided to remove himself,” Collins said. “I believe it is another giant step in the wrong direction.”
The motion on removal of the district attorney initially passed 5 to 4 with one member abstaining. But an hour later, the subject was brought up for reconsideration, along with allowing attorneys to participate directly in the inquest process.
NAACP attorney Richard Boulware proposed the two motions be reconsidered and it was quickly supported by McLetchie, Clark County public defender Phil Kohn and newly appointed board member Jose Solorio.
“I think our 5-5 vote proved that this is a close issue. I realize we’ve been here a number of hours, but now we know we’re in the middle,” Kohn said. “Saying we can’t make a decision is not what we came here to do.”
For the next 45 minutes, panel members went back and forth on whether to reconsider the motions.
Eventually a motion was proposed: having the DA’s office be involved with the process and to also have attorneys for the decedent’s family and police officers ask questions of witnesses through an independent ombudsman.
It passed 8-2, with only Roger and Collins voting against.
The panel decided a jury should remain part of the process, but it would be referred to as an “inquest panel.” The committee Monday night recommended that the inquest panel not find a verdict, but rather determine facts.
It was also proposed there would be two pre-inquest conferences, where the presiding officer would work with attorneys for interested parties, the decedent’s family and the police officers involved, as to the scope of questioning and when the inquest would be held.
The panel voted to have video and transcripts of an inquest available online as soon as possible.
The recommendations of the panel will be presented to the county commission Nov. 16 and the commission will vote Dec. 7.
CORRECTION: This story was changed to more accurately reflect the role of the ombudsman in the panel’s recommendations. The story previously stated that attorneys would submit questions to the ombudsman during the inquest. | (November 9, 2010)
Chunky says:
Sounds reasonable and it takes some of the workload off the DA's office.
That's what Chunky thinks!
Please tell me this isn't the only change.
So, they were going to have an independent examiner, and take the D.A. out of the process... but the Inquest Panel voted AGAINST that???
Nolo comprende.
Great logic Chunky. Way to look out for those poor, overworked District Attorneys. I would feel awful if they had to spend long hours thinking up ways to smear the deceased or coach 80 year old witnesses. Can you imagine the stress?
Once again, the voices of dislike/distrust are the first ones heard from. The DA offers/requests to be removed from the procedures in order to reduce the image of predjudice, others want to keep them and the public immediately pesumes some form of collusion. Remember, folks, these meetings are ADVISORY. The County Commission has the final say, and that won't be for several more weeks. So, relax. Concerned residents will still have time to weigh in with thir inputs and opinions. But I still stand by my position that, if you are in a confrontational situation with law enforcement, if you follow the officer's instructions EXACTLY, you have a nearly 100% chance of not being shot, and those odds are just fine with me, because that is exactly what I have done and what I tell anyone I have influence on to do, and none of them or myself have been shot.
Dear Dean,
You are absolutely correct. In light of all this new nobleness and truthiness from the DA I take back any negativity that might have suggested that they were biased towards helping police recieve a justified verdict in fact finding missions. Furthermore, you are dead on in your position that if you follow the officer's instructions EXACTLY that you will have a nearly 100% chance of not being shot. Well except when an officer instructs you to drop your holstered gun from inside your pants, but other than that nearly 100% EXACTLY.
While I don't think this will ever come close to actually holding officers accountable, I do believe that, at the very least it will add a aura of fairness that the current system doesn't offer. Who know how many family members seek a judgement in civil court because they feel that justice wasn't served. Still, as long as we allow an cops to justify every shooting with the "I was in fear" defense, all of us are still at risk of being the next victim.
When govrnment starts to protect the people it is a positive action. When government tries to protect itself against the people it is wrong. If the cops can't supervise themselves, guidelines must be put in place. These recommendations must be inacted to restore some degree of trust of the police.
@ deanofdawgs "follow the officer's instructions EXACTLY that you will have a nearly 100% chance of not being shot."
If only that were true. Tell that to Orlando Barlow, who was killed by Officer Brian Hartman. Hartman testified that, while Barlow was in compliance with officers demands (on knees--hands raised), he had the feeling that might be faking. So there was no choice by to shoot him.
So the deaf deserve to die? What about conflicting orders?
And is that the advice you would give your 17-year-old daughter, your wife, or your mother when the cops instructions involve her naked and him masturbating in his squad car.
Exactly when did Metro earn such blind loyalty despite the constant lies, false arrests and immoral behavior? I just can't understand how to close my mind that way.
@ bghs1986 - Exactly.
The problem as I see it is that the police don't police themselves, so at this point citizens don't trust them anymore.
So, NO I WON'T JUST DO WHAT THE NICE POLICEMAN TELLS ME TO DO, not if it doesn't make sense.
When will Metro get it through their heads, not every person is a criminal.
@geezelouise-So, NO I WON'T JUST DO WHAT THE NICE POLICEMAN TELLS ME TO DO, not if it doesn't make sense.
That WILL get you killed. It doesn't have to make sense to YOU, police are trained to give orders during a volitile situation for many reasons. The time to argue with the police is in the courtroom, not out on the streets. This is why there are so many police shootings, people don't want to follow orders, they want to argue while a gun is pointed at them.
Leadership Accountability is defined with one word.
"OSTENSIBLE"
chrisgold - so are you saying that if you dont listen to a police officers COMMANDS then that gives an officer the right to shoot and kill you??? Think about how ridiculous your last paragraph sounds. I'm sorry but no man or woman should be given the right to shoot someone because a person doesnt want to be bossed around and treated like someones b*t*h. This is a free country and if someone wants to give an officer a peace of his mind about the officers treatment of them then they should have the right to do so. The officer should recognize that individuals rights and just give him/her their ticket and be on their way. Instead these officers now-a-days get all butt hurt because some people do not like being dictated too, hence the reason we dont live in a dictatorship, and the officer gets so inflammed that someone would question their all mighty authority and ends up shooting and killing a human being because of their power trip. Sorry but thats murder. Whats the difference if you were out and you were being a punk, causing a disturbance, breaking something, whatever and some guy came up to you and told you to stop, your being a punk, and you decided to just smart off to him, would that give that man the right to just pull out his 9 and put a couple slugs in your skull??? You were being a punk, you werent listening, you were being an a**hole, but did you deserve to get shot and killed because of that??? easy answer, NOOOOOOO. Our society is civil and thus people shouldnt have to worry about an officer killing them, if they should be put to death it should be decided by a judge and jury of his/her peers, not by an insulted polieman. Now if you would like to give officers the authority to just shoot and kill any person they dont agree with then maybe you should move to a country like north korea, or china or any other dictatorship, communist country.
Ingognitorebel- My key word is VOLITILE situation. I'm not talking about a speeding ticket, or some kid mouthing off. I think most readers understood my point. I stand by comments.
""We are not going to participate if you change it to adversarial," Ramirez said, then walked back to his seat."
I'd expect the public to assume your guilty of murder than. Just like we would if any other person refused to cooperate with an official murder investigation. Can't have it both ways. Who in there right mind would make such a comment?
I can see it backfiring. Lets say there is a bar brawl one night. Gunfire erupts and one of the bar patrons lays dead on the pavement. Police were there breaking up the fiasco. One of the officers clearly shot the man in self-defense. However the only witnesses who will speak up say the officer murdered the man in cold blood. The rest say, "Sorry Mr. Investigator, we refuse to participate in your investigation, its too adversarial."
"Officer Michael Ramirez was brief and to the point.
'We are not going to participate if you change it to adversarial,' Ramirez said, then walked back to his seat.'"
The absolute arrogance of Metro officers and their union boss, Chris Collins, cannot be overlooked. This agency is so out of control that only an open federal intervention might have any chance of cleaning out the top to bottom scum that resides in Metro. Citizens of Clark County should rightfully be very, very afraid of the despicable power grab of this agency. Normal checks and balances have failed with Metro; it is time for federal action, as with the corrupt LAPD of the 1990's.
As a Libertarian, it goes against my grain to hope for federal intervention. But Metro has brought this on itself, by the repeated disgusting behavior of its management, union bosses, and rank and file officers. It is way past time for a thorough sanitizing of this filthy agency.
So you don't want the officers to have 5th amendment rights? If it is a trial, with penalties, then he has the right to not speak I would think. The problem is, you can't have it both ways. Do you want to get the facts? or...do you want to punish the officer? If you want to punish the officer, then don't expect him to help you do it.
NEGOTIATION - you can change the panel but until the police have more civil tools available, innocents will continue to be executed summarily. Really - the police were so physically disabled that they have to shoot every tom dick and harry that they frame? A new group of skills are needed. The panel just reviews bad procedure to see if the police have acted within the letter of the law. Good luck with that one. I mean for instance when the search warrant is defective - like with information for someone else with a similar name - the person doing that or others in the chain of command should be suspended. Maybe if
Dougie Gillespie were suspended for his officers misconduct, well things would change. Good luck with that!!!
If the officer wants to take the 5th then go right ahead. Can you imagine a fact finding process that the outcome is actually based on facts and witnesses examined from both sides rather than instruct the jury that if the officer thought there was a threat, even if the threat was not real, that it must be justified? It's not like the officer's are likely to repeat anything other than their well thought out/ planned/ coached testimony gone over by the police protective agency attorneys unless they are cross examined.
So if an officer approaches me adversarially I can choose not to particpate too?
This is the old adage who will police the police?
Three words:
Civilian Review Board
Yes Public review board is the answer.
And lets not forget the fact that it was Public outcry that has started these changes the leadership has failed to do the policing of themselves now the public wants to do the policing and these employee's of ours are going to say they wont participate perhaps we decide that you don't participate in the civil service,
All concerns of adversarial comments show that all have gotten together to control the out come business as usual. They pretty much said play like I want or I will take my ball home!
Keep in mind that you work for us we don't work for you.