Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleInquest panel considers removing verdict from process
Monday, Oct. 25, 2010 | 11:44 p.m.
Sun archives
- 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)
Despite a number of disagreements at Monday night’s Coroner’s Inquest Review Panel, there was one issue that some members of the panel agreed on: don’t end the inquest with a verdict.
No official voting took place, but several members of the panel agreed with a suggestion that the coroner’s inquest have no verdict of justified, excusable or criminal. Jurors now must choose among those three options.
“I’m more convinced now than ever that we should not have a verdict at the end of this inquest,” Public Defender Phil Kohn said. “If it’s fact-finding … then the whole purpose of this is to find out what happened at a given time in history. Whether this is criminal in nature is always going to be up to the district attorney to determine.”
Panel Chairman Christopher Blakesley said a decision on whether inquests include a verdict would serve as a foundation for deciding other issues. He agreed with Kohn’s suggestion on removing the verdict, adding that jurors would need specific instructions on what facts would be sought out during the inquest.
Chris Collins, executive director of the Police Protective Association, and ACLU of Nevada attorney Margaret McLetchie agreed that doing away with a verdict could help the inquest process.
“The question is what [the jurors] are going to find,” McLetchie said. “I do agree with the consensus that seems to be developing.”
Collins said having no verdict wouldn’t be a sticking point for the police association.
“I believe that the officers would prefer a verdict, because it’s kind of a justification from the citizenry on what they did,” Collins said. “If no verdict is what comes out of it, then that’s OK.”
Besides deciding on whether there should be a verdict, the issue of making the coroner’s inquest a fact-finding process or an adversarial process – letting attorneys cross-examine witnesses and police officers – was a debated point of contention.
The seed of the discussion was planted when Collins said the panel needed to agree on what the ultimate purpose of an inquest would be.
“The problem is we keep talking about all these little parts of the inquest and we’re not getting to the meat of the matter,” he said. “Do we need an inquest at all? Is it going to be adversarial? Or is it going to remain in some faction like it is today?”
Coroner Michael Murphy echoed Collins’ statements, saying the panel would be stuck in a “circular conversation” until the purpose of an inquest was addressed.
District Attorney David Roger warned the panel of advocating for an adversarial process, citing the 2007 Coroner’s Inquest Review Panel.
“What we envisioned in 2007 has turned into actually a circus,” Roger said. “I don’t think it’s really a search for a truth but merely questions designed to provide information for a federal lawsuit. When you start allowing cross-examination … it’s going to turn out to be an expanded deposition.”
McLetchie said the distinction between the process being fact-finding and adversarial is meaningless.
“Juries find facts all the time and that is through the adversarial process,” she said. “That adversarial process is what we’re used to and it works. It lets truth come to light because you have both sides, people with a vested interest in getting their side of the story out there.”
Collins said the Police Protective Association is against an adversarial process.
“The officers should not face cross-examination in the inquest process,” he said. “They’ve been accused of no crime, they’ve been charged with no crime.”
The next review panel will be at 5 p.m. Monday, Nov. 1, in the Clark County Commission Chambers, 500 S. Grand Central Parkway. Voting on recommendations to be sent to the county commission will take place at the last meeting on Monday, Nov. 8.
Discussion: 3 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
- Photos: Olivia Culpo, 20, of Rhode Island is crowned 2012 Miss USA at Planet Hollywood
- US Navy hopes stealth ship answers a rising China
- Learning about Electric Daisy Carnival fans will help Las Vegas court them
- On the horizon: A quick look at projects poised to shape downtown
- Clark PG Kentrell Washington heading to Hofstra basketball
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Joe Pesci remembers his own honeymoon in Vegas -- meeting the Rat Pack
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
If there will be no "verdict" rendered lets just stop the farce and expense of the inquest.
The reality is that Rogers is supported by law enforcement (see his campaign ads) so he is in no position to decide.
Collins doesn't want justice -- he wants protection for his constituents.
Going to a proper adversarial process will never happen so the citizens of the Valley will just have to deal with these untrained keystone cops who can't hit the side of a barn if they fired from 4'.
Please boys --- just stop the show that you care. You don't, it's obvious. So stop wasting everyone's time. Want proof of that statement? Yant's still go his job, right? Thought so.
As is stands now, the inquest serves little purpose other than to reduce or avoid damages from a wrongful death suit. It's "verdict" is non-binding and even if it ever did return "criminal" the DA is under no obligation to prosecute (and in fact the one time it did return "criminal" the grand jury refused to indict.)
Let's have school, but not give grades.
Let's play ball, but not keep score.
Let's have elections, but not count the votes.
HUH???
If that's the best you can come up with to fix this broken system of "fact-finding";
FUGGEDABOUTIT!!!
John L. Smith column from this past Sunday has some enlightening comments:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/justice-system-...
rjcretired wrote on October 19, 2010 09:57 AM: "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. David is as corrupt as they come. 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 Why is the RJ trying so hard to cover for known corruption on the part of Sheriff Gillespie and District Attorney David Roger??? I suspect the public is figuring out that these two have concealed the truth about many cover-ups, i.e. Trevon Cole and Eric Scott.
This is an example of three men with no moral fiber. I cast my vote yesterday for two of them, cast them right in the trash.
DA Roger said, "I don't think it's really a search for a truth but merely questions designed to provide information for a federal lawsuit."
This statement completely explains the Scott and Cole inquests. The DA was never attempting to ascertain the truth at either inquest. Instead, the DA was trying to protect Metro from federal lawsuits by attacking the victims.
At least the DA acknowledges that the inquest process is anything but a objective attempt to find the truth.
I think if there is no verdict in the inquest and left to DA to decide if criminal then the verdict might as well be JUSTIFIABLE as its always been! The DA will never file criminal charges against metro.So they will still have a license to kill!I think there still needs to be a verdict and one that includes manslaughter and the inquest verdict should be treated adversarial.A verdict isn't going to mean anything if the process to obtain a fair one isn't reached!