Changes to coroner’s inquest process leave jury verdicts behind

One can trace the refusal of Southern Nevada police officers to participate in the coroner's inquest process to the exact moment when it became relevant.

That moment, of course, came when Clark County commissioners decided to include an ombudsman to represent the families of people killed at the hands of police, to cross-examine officers at inquest hearings.

Suddenly, police officers refused to participate in a process that, over recent decades, has found all but one police shooting either justifiable or excusable.

The objection: Officers could be forced to give testimony against themselves, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, revealing information that could later be used against them in court.

That objection is easily rebutted, of course. First, if a district attorney believed a cop acted criminally, he'd indict the officer and there would be no coroner's inquest. Second, if no criminal charges are pending, an officer could be forced to testify about the case in a civil lawsuit anyway.

That's why amending the inquest ordinance to include an ombudsman was important: It would add a measure of accountability the old system lacked. And with even Las Vegas police acknowledging the need for change in light of a prize-winning, in-depth investigation by the Review-Journal into the use of deadly force, the time for change has finally come.

On Monday, however, the Clark County Commission adopted an alternative proposal that, while retaining the ombudsman, eliminates the 15-member coroner's inquest jury, citizens who were entitled to ask questions of witnesses right along with the prosecutor, presiding officer and ombudsman.

The alternative plan - advocated by Commissioners Steve Sisolak and Larry Brown - was designed to change the nature of the inquest into (let's call it what they did) "a police fatality public fact-finding review." The police detective who investigated the case would outline his findings and respond to questions, along with other witnesses.

Critics called the alternative ordinance toothless, but they may want to read to the end of the original proposal, which calls for the jury to answer a set of questions about the incident that "shall deal only with questions of fact and shall not deal with questions of fault or guilt. The findings ... shall not be binding on the district attorney's office nor shall the findings have any preclusive effect in any future civil or criminal proceeding."

The old three-tier system of verdicts - justifiable, excusable or criminal - is gone from both proposals.

Brown made a solid case for the fact that family members may be seeking something from the inquest procedure - a finding of a criminal violation, a sanction for unjust acts - that the system is simply not designed to provide. The most the county could do was to get the facts out, to explain to family members and the public what happened.

There's some value to that: Most police shootings are justifiable, a last-resort occasioned by the actions of the desperate or the devious. It's important to find a way to differentiate between these incidents and shootings such as that of Trevon Cole, in which the testimony of the officer who fired the fatal shots was clearly at odds with the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony.

It's possible that officers - who flatly refused to participate once an ombudsman was added - will elect to testify in the new one. And given the fact that no hearing will be held until after the district attorney has decided against filing criminal charges, officers will have little excuse not to testify.

That's especially true now that the inquest system has been re-tooled to reveal only what happened, and not whether it was right.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.