Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, April 26, 2012 | 8:18 p.m.
Five Nevada Highway Patrol officers asked the state Supreme Court on Thursday to block a Clark County coroner's inquest planned for May 3-4.
At issue is an inquest into the August 2010 death of Eduardo Lopez-Hernandez of Henderson.
He died after being tased by police after what police called a road-rage incident on U.S. 95 near Charleston Boulevard in Las Vegas.
His family has already hit the state with a lawsuit alleging civil rights violations in his death — charges denied by the state.
At issue now is whether the first inquest in Clark County's revamped coroner's inquest process will move forward. Inquests examine police actions resulting in a death.
After criticism that the old system always favored police, the Clark County Commission changed it in December 2010.
Under the changes, an ombudsman is appointed to represent the family of the person killed by police, and key evidence and investigative files will be released.
The local police union has complained the new system is no longer aimed at determining the facts, but instead is an adversarial system pitting officers against the families of those killed.
In a case involving Metro Police, a federal judge has already ruled the new system doesn't violate the rights of the officers whose actions are examined.
That ruling by U.S. District Judge Philip Pro is now on appeal to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and there's no way to say when it will rule.
And now, attorneys for the Highway Patrol troopers in the tasing case want the inquest involving them stopped.
They insisted in a plea to the Nevada Supreme Court on Thursday that the new investigative process "performs an accusative function because it is designed to find specifically identified police officers responsible for crimes and to publicize their alleged wrongdoing.''
The Supreme Court hasn't yet indicated when it will rule on the motion that next week's inquest be halted until the issues about the new inquest process are fully litigated.
I'm the most law and order guy present in Nevada but our law enforcement officers are out of control.
The guy was tased 18 times yet the coroner said that was not related to the cause of death. I really want to see some proof of that.
If they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't be worried.
Here we go again, with police unions attempting to block legal hearings where the death of a suspect has occured. The changes to the Inquest system ordered by Judge Phillip Pro is a justifiable and reasonable court decision. In specific, concerning an officer's testimony being open to cross-examination in a revised Coroner's Inquest system where death has resulted, is in no way intrusive to an officer's rights.
As a former officer, I have stood, as a defendant in front of Judge Phillip Pro. He is an extremely fair judge, but does demand the true facts of a case be revealed without strategic legal games being played by officers and their legal representatives.
In my experiences with Judge Phillip Pro, I was completely open and honest in my testimony in his court. Of course, I had a legal representative from the Attorney General's Office, but I kept my lawyer in his proper place. Judge Pro quickly came to realize that I was a "by the book officer" and therefore, was not afraid or hesitant to reveal all facts and perceptions that were related to the case. As previously stated in my commentaries, "I never lost a case."
In fact, on most occasions, the plaintiffs' family in the aftermath of legal proceedings apologized for all the legal processes I had to endure. My response each time was, "An apology is not necessary. You have the right to know the absolute truthful facts."
When it comes to the use of Tasers, there is no law that defines this weapon as deploying deadly use of force. However, practicality dictates that targeting this weapon in the region of a person's torso could well be construed in a legal setting as deadly use of force. As a former academy instructor, my advice to students was to target the stomach, arms or leg areas of a suspect. The reason this could only be issued as advice, is, because specific training provided by professionals in the use of Tasers countermanded my instruction on this issue.
Thanks to Steve Wolfson, they can't be charged with murder
"In my experiences with Judge Phillip Pro, I was completely open and honest in my testimony in his court."
I have to ask, when not in front of that judge, where you completely open and honest with all others then? I ask because of how the above was worded and if other judges weren't fair and wanted only facts, then does being dishonest and not providing a complete set of facts acceptable then?
I would hate to have a lawyer or some other group reopen cases for the way the letter was worded, hence, all testimony regardless of who, honesty and all the facts prevail.
In reply to Tim Wiggin; if you prefer to question my past as a public servant it is all public record. You do the research. Have fun digging.
Every judge has been fair and honest. I just preferred Judge Phillip Pro's "brass tacks" decorum. It fit me well with my personal methods in testifying, that I have nothing to hide. Therefore, let's forget all the technical "mumbo jumbo" that some officers and their lawyers pursue when being questioned. My testimony of proper conduct and appropriate actions in situations was easily proven by evidence submitted to the court and by my direct verbal testimony.
Judge Pro just appreciated my "upfront approach" with absolutely no legal maneuverings.
No need, asked and answered. :):)
The various law enforcement departments have been using one excuse after another for years to avoid the inquest process. It all boils down to the citizenry having the right to know what its sworn officers are doing in their names and giving transparency to the truth rather than a rubber stamp to the same old - nothing to see here, just move on - MO that the police have insisted on for years.
If we don't want a police state in NV we need to insist on an open and honest process that favors no party over another.
people keep complaining about the inquest process...from what i know it is the most indepth process of releasing facts about officer involved shootings...do you people want what LA does?? after a shooting the DA comes out and does an investigation...if he/she deems it was justified there is no public forum for review and the officers are back on the street within about a week...lets just switch it to this process so no one can complain anymore...