Family of slain man not satisfied with the process
To the editor:
Late last month, my son John Collopy and I had the unhappy duty of attending the coroner's inquest into the fatal shooting of my son and his brother, David Collopy, by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officer James Coates on Feb. 9 in a remote wilderness area.
Advertisement
I had been told by others who had experience with coroner's inquests that it would be biased in favor of the officer and would almost certainly result in a ruling of justifiable or excusable homicide. I had also read many news articles discussing the issue.
As the proceeding progressed, it became abundantly clear to me, my son and the other relatives and friends who attended that the inquest was designed to convince the jury that the homicide of my son was justified. The only person present at the shooting who was alive to testify was a well-rehearsed officer Coates. The chief deputy district attorney and deputy district attorney were the only persons allowed to question Mr. Coates. Meanwhile, we, the family, were allowed to write questions out, each on a separate form, and submit them to the hearing officer during the examination, who would ask those questions he deemed appropriate. But it was almost impossible for us, in this highly emotional situation, to formulate queries while also listening to the testimony.
Any attorney present on behalf of the victim's family would not have been allowed to examine the witnesses either, but would also be required to write out each question on a form and submit it to the hearing officer. None of us was allowed to speak.
Mr. Ordowski, the hearing master, was a sympathetic and kindly man, and obviously intelligent and experienced. In giving his instructions to the jury, however, he strongly emphasized those instructions regarding what constitutes justifiable homicide; his last admonition to the jurors seemed clearly designed to ensure a ruling of justifiable homicide.
Combined with the biased presentation of the alleged facts, it was my conclusion that the jurors had no choice but to rule the homicide justifiable.
The testimony that was given showed the death of my son was the result of negligence. However, there is no option of "negligent homicide." I could discuss at length why I believe this was a negligent homicide; however, that is for a different letter. My purpose here is to express my outrage at the obvious bias of the coroner's inquest process, and perhaps help effect a change whereby the hearing allows for examination of the witnesses by attorneys or representatives of the victim of the homicide, instead of just those concerned with protecting the government and its employees.
