Las Vegas Sun

August 30, 2014

Currently: 90° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Coroner’s inquest review panel proposes changes

Updated Tuesday, Nov. 9, 2010 | 2:24 a.m.

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)

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 7 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.

  1. Chunky says:

    Sounds reasonable and it takes some of the workload off the DA's office.

    That's what Chunky thinks!

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Leadership Accountability is defined with one word.
    "OSTENSIBLE"

  5. 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!!!

  6. 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

  7. 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.