Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, May 2, 2012 | 2:39 p.m.
The Nevada Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered Clark County officials not to conduct a coroner’s inquest planned for Thursday — the first such inquest under controversial new procedures more favorable to family members of people killed by police.
The court temporarily stayed the inquest until at least May 11 so that it has more time to review briefs filed by county officials and attorneys for Nevada Highway Patrol officers challenging the new inquest procedures.
Highway Patrol officers, who were present when Eduardo Lopez-Hernandez died in August 2010 after being Tasered, last week asked the court for an emergency injunction to block the inquest proceedings while issues about the legality of the new process are litigated.
“Having reviewed the parties’ filings and supporting documents, we conclude that a temporary stay is warranted to allow for consideration of the motion,” the court wrote in Wednesday’s order halting Thursday’s inquest.
Both sides will now have time to file additional briefs in the case. It’s unclear if there will be further delays beyond May 11.
The Clark County Commission has argued the new procedures are fair to police officers in that the inquest process remains a fact-finding exercise.
Attorneys for the Highway Patrol officers say the process is adversarial, pitting police against family members of people killed and is geared toward finding them guilty of misconduct.
The County Commission in 2010 approved new inquest procedures in which an ombudsman is appointed to represent the family of the person killed by police and key evidence and investigative files will be released.
Those changes were ordered after critics said the old system always favored police.
A stay under these circumstances is unwarranted.
As the article states, the Metro officers tasered Mr. Lopez-Hernandez to death in 2010. It later reveals "The County Commission in 2010 approved new inquest procedures."
The officers clearly had an adequate amount of forewarning and substantial time to prepare pleadings and otherwise develop a case.
It is disturbing when the justice system provides additional time, special treatment, or grants leniency to police officers that other defendants do not receive.
Police unions have not aired any concerns over the justice system finding defendants guilty of alleged offenses and certainly haven't filed for injunctions to block proceedings to protect defendants being tried under those procedures.
The solution would appear to be for anyone involved in an officer involved shooting to go through the same justice system as anyone under else.
Failure to do so indicates the very people who charge others with crimes don't have faith that the justice system is capable of determining guilt or innocence.
Even under the revisions made to the Coroner's Inquest system, this process still remains a fact-finding exercise;
Therefore, NRS289.020 applies; "If a peace officer refuses to comply with a request by a superior officer to cooperate with the peace officer's own or any other law enforcement agency in a criminal investigation, the agency may charge the peace officer with insubordination."
From what I can find, there have been about 150 inquests since 1976. Of those only *one* resulted in a finding of criminally negligent. And that single case, when presented to a grand jury, resulted in a refusal to indict.
While it would be nice to think that METRO is actually that good in their judgement when they use lethal force, we all have our doubts.
I, for one, think that the old system was used mainly to mitigate damage awards from the ensuing wrongful death civil suits, of which several have been successful.
We need a system that will once again foster trust in our law enforcement agencies, including the DA's office.