Won’t participate?

Many in the public perceive the Clark County coroner's inquest process as seriously flawed.

The inquest is triggered in most cases where an on-duty police officer is involved in a death. The process was initially created as a reform, intended to allow more public scrutiny of such incidents.

Despite the open airing of facts in the current process, many still complain the guiding of the officer or officers through their testimony by a sympathetic representative of the district attorney's office -- absent any adversarial cross-examination -- leads to police actions nearly always being found "excusable" or "justified."

So, on Tuesday the Clark County Commission by a 4-2 vote gave preliminary approval to a package of changes, under which families of those killed by local police will be represented by an "independent counsel" at coroner's inquests.

The "ombudsman" or "independent counsel" was a compromise accepted by those who would prefer to let surviving families hire attorneys to represent them at inquests, establishing a neutral party to question officers and witnesses without gathering legal ammunition for a future lawsuit.

But Chris Collins, executive director of the Police Protective Association, insists, "The legal advice we will give our police officers is to not participate in the inquest process," under the new rules. He argues establishment of an ombudsman will "put the first nail in the coffin to end the process."

Maggie McLetchie, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said officers who shoot a suspect have the constitutional right not to testify if they think it would incriminate them, but officers who witness a shooting couldn't simply bow out under the new ordinance. They could be subpoenaed and held in contempt if they refuse to testify.

Commissioners also decided to eliminate the jury verdict options of "justified," "excusable" or "criminal." Juries will instead be renamed "inquest panels" and make findings of fact instead of fault. That's probably an improvement. One of the problems with the current process is that it resembles a trial, when it's really not.

The judge and prosecutor would also now meet twice with attorneys of family members before the inquest, with investigative files being made available to the parties involved.

Sheriff Doug Gillespie, who was on the panel that recommended the changes, says he backs all the reforms. The whole point is to increase the public's trust in the process, he said, and "I believe those recommendations do just that."

The sheriff's support is encouraging, though the potential problem of officers declining to participate -- as they certainly have a Fifth Amendment right to do -- remains the great unknown.