Las Vegas Sun

November 26, 2014

Currently: 62° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

NHP troopers move to block coroner’s inquest into stun-gun death

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.

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: 5 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. 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.

  2. If they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't be worried.

  3. "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.

  4. No need, asked and answered. :):)

  5. 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.