Inquest ordinance draws fire

A Clark County ordinance designed to instill public trust in coroner's inquest hearings was attacked Tuesday by critics who argue that proposed changes will do nothing to convince families of those killed that the hearings do not favor law enforcement.

"It is a badly broken system, and this is nothing but window dressing," said Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada. "They haven't done anything to change the rules by which the game is played."

The "game" is a coroner's inquest, a proceeding held to determine whether officer-involved fatal shootings are justified.

The process has been controversial and came under fire again after an inquest jury ruled last year that Metropolitan Police Department officers were justified when they shot 17-year-old murder suspect Swauve Lopez in the back as he fled police in handcuffs.

On Tuesday, commissioners agreed that justices of the peace -- elected officials whom the public can hold accountable -- should replace hearing officers who preside over inquests.

The commissioners said "interested parties," individuals who are allowed to ask questions of witnesses, should be broadened beyond immediate family members to include grandparents or other relatives with whom the deceased might have lived.

To avoid a chaotic situation, questions must be submitted by an attorney representing the party, all agreed at Tuesday's commission meeting.

To appease critics who think the district attorney's office has a too-close relationship with law enforcement and is therefore unable to fairly conduct a fact-finding hearing, the commission requested that the attorney general's office step in and present the case.

The most debated element of the proposed ordinance concerned who can pose questions at hearings and how the hearing officer should handle inappropriate or irrelevant queries.

Peck said that questions from family members of the deceased are often tossed aside without explanation. He said the two officers involved in the Lopez hearing offered different answers when asked how far they were from Lopez when he was shot. No one questioned the discrepancy.

"Any system that doesn't include that question when you're trying to get to criminal intent is a bogus system," Peck said.

Peck suggested the hearing officer read questions posed by family members aloud in front of the jury. If the hearing officer thinks the question is irrelevant, the jury can be told why and the question could be discarded.

But commissioners sided with Sheriff Doug Gillespie, who agreed the public should hear the questions outside the presence of the jury. If they were deemed irrelevant, they would be read into the record, but jurors would not hear the question upon their return.

"Those watching it (on television) will see it; those reporting on it will hear it," Gillespie said.

Under the existing rules, in cases of questions deemed irrelevant, the hearing officer does not read the question out loud or explain why it was not posed to a witness.

Commission Chairman Rory Reid feared that if inappropriate questions were asked in front of the jury, officers on the witness stand might invoke their Fifth Amendment right and refuse to testify. Officer testimony, which is voluntary, is crucial to resolving a case, he said.

Peck lobbied to have the entire process revamped and said it blatantly favors law enforcement.

A hearing officer once allowed a use-of-force expert to testify about the cause of death of an inmate who was choked, he said. The officer told the jury the inmate died from "sudden inmate death syndrome," Peck said, adding that the hearing officer never questioned the qualifications of the witness.

Another hearing officer allowed a woman to sit on the jury even after she disclosed that she was an acquaintance of then-Sheriff Bill Young, Peck said.

"This system invites lawsuits because families leave (the hearing) saying it was a sham," Peck said.

Peck and Dean Ishman, president of the Las Vegas branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, supported the commission's decision to request that the attorney general's office replace the district attorney's office in conducting the hearings. Ishman said some proceedings turn into "character assassinations" because the prosecutor is familiar with the criminal background of the deceased.

District Attorney David Roger denied that his office is one-sided. He said officers are often cleared of wrongdoing because jurors understand life-threatening situations that frequently face police.

"In my 21 years, I haven't met an officer who would like to shoot a human being," Roger said.