Role of victims’ families discussed

Most members of a nine-person panel said Monday that they were open to letting families of suspects fatally shot by police have representatives question officers and witnesses at coroner's inquests.

Under the current system, prosecutors and jurors are the only ones who can ask questions in open court. The victim's family and other "interested parties" must submit questions in writing to the judge, who chooses which ones to read.

The pros and cons of letting a lawyer for the victim's family cross-examine witnesses and challenge prosecutors' questions dominated the discussion at the panel's second meeting.

The panel, which was formed to review coroner's inquests after two divisive cases, will meet twice more and recommend changes to the Clark County Commission.

Most panel members argued that the victim's family should have a lawyer participate in hearings to dispel any perception that the process is one-sided in favor of police who used deadly force.

"We need to have more than one attorney involved," said Maggie McLetchie, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. "We need to balance the power of the district attorney. If we can't make that fix, if we can't make it fair, then we should abandon it (inquests) altogether."

But District Attorney David Roger and a police union representative argued against bringing in opposing counsel, saying it would turn an inquiry into a legal battle.

"You either have fact-finding or an adversarial process," Roger said.

An attorney for a bereaved family also could use the inquest to bolster a federal lawsuit against the police, Roger said. "These attorneys are prepping for federal court."

Chris Collins, executive director for the local Police Protective Association, said that, if anything, the number of interested parties who can submit questions should be reduced.

Several members dismissed Roger's argument that an adversarial hearing couldn't gather facts.

Richard Boulware, of the NAACP, said most legal proceedings are adversarial to present various sides with the aim of getting at the truth. No stones should go unturned when investigating a killing, he said.

"We're having a nice intellectual conversation, but let's not forget that people have been killed," Boulware said.

Sheriff Doug Gillespie and Bill Maupin, a retired state Supreme Court justice, both suggested that the victim's family be appointed public counsel, such as an ombudsman, to represent it at an inquest, rather than using a private attorney.

That would prevent hired lawyers from escalating the fight too much, Maupin said. "You change the whole character of the proceedings when you put lawyers in the mix."

Gillespie said families should always have the choice not to participate.

Most panel members agreed that the current method for the jury finding verdicts -- justifiable, excusable or criminal -- makes the inquest seem like a trial and should be changed, though none could say exactly how.

Gina Greisen, an area resident, said she was irked that the district attorney seemed more concerned about protecting the county against lawsuits than pursuing the truth.

"I'm offended as a member of the public," Greisen said. "I want to know what happened 15 minutes before and 15 minutes after a shooting."