Las Vegas Sun

April 24, 2014

Currently: 73° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Group to propose changes to coroner’s inquest process

Image

Steve Marcus

Sheriff Doug Gillespie, center, attends a Clark County Commission meeting at the Clark County Government Center Tuesday, October 5, 2010. The commission voted to have a committee look into changes to the coroner’s inquest system, the fact-finding process that Clark County uses after a killing by police.

Updated Tuesday, Oct. 5, 2010 | 3:05 p.m.

Changes to Inquest Discussed

Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak, right, makes a motion during a Clark County Commission meeting at the Clark County Government Center Tuesday, October 5, 2010. Commissioner Lawrence Weekly listens at left. The commission voted to have a committee look into changes to the coroner's inquest system, the fact-finding process that Clark County uses after a killing by police. Launch slideshow »

Change is coming to the coroner’s inquest system, the process Clark County uses to ferret out the facts of a killing by police.

By Dec. 7, a committee consisting of a retired state Supreme Court judge, and a member from each of the ACLU, the NAACP, Metro Police, the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, the police union, the coroner and a UNLV law professor will return to the commission with a proposed changed county ordinance.

The current process involves a county prosecutor picking witnesses, including the police officers, and questioning them in a quasi-judicial forum. At the end of the hearing, a jury panel decides if the shooting was justified, excused or criminal.

It’s controversial because parties outside of the police department have, for decades, complained they don’t get a fair shake in asking questions and they believe the district attorney is on the side of police.

All of it came to a loggerheads with two shootings in the last four months, one of Trevon Cole and the other of Erik Scott.

Commissioner Steve Sisolak asked that the group look at specific ideas: drug testing for officers involved in fatal shootings; allowing cross-examinations by attorneys for family members of the deceased, and potentially other parties; let attorneys for the officer ask questions; and at the hearing’s end, have no verdict. Instead, it would be up to the district attorney to decide if the case warranted civil or criminal charges.

“The goal of this is to arrive at the truth,” Sisolak said.

CORRECTION: This story originally reported the group would return to the commission with a proposed changed county ordinance on Nov. 7. It was corrected to Dec. 7. | (October 5, 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: 4 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. I fully support the idea of drug testing officers who are involved.

    I don't like the idea of doing away with the verdict and allowing the DA to make the decision to prosecute or not. I would rather have a verdict of "criminal" be binding upon the DA to bring charges.

    I would also change the possible verdicts to be only "criminal" or "not-criminal". As it stands now, the inquest serves mainly to limit government exposure to wrongful death suits. Removing the verdicts of "justified" and "excusable" would reduce the inquests influence to some extent from other proceedings.

  2. Public Review Board

  3. SummerlinCC, I will tell you the same thing that Southerners tell the damn Yankees when they migrate to the South for retirement and feel it is their duty to correct everything, "We don't give a damn how you did it up North!"

  4. The Scott inquest underscored what everyone thought was wrong with the Cole inquest. The Scott inquest being televised was in response to the public dissatisfaction with the Cole inquest.

    There is little doubt that changes must be made to restore public confidence.

    As an aside, it is my understanding that it is rare for any officer to discharge his or her weapon in the line of duty. For Metro to have several members who have done so multiple times suggests that officers might be assigned different duties after such incidents, even when cleared of wrong doing.