Comments (14) | Add a comment
Part IV: Broken System, Shattered Lives
History of Clark County coroner's inquest system
Tools
© 2011, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Updated: Apr. 10, 2012 | 10:20 p.m.
Clark County's inquest system dates to 1969, when a white North Las Vegas police officer shot and killed a black teenager. Calls for a formal review of the shooting from black community leaders were ignored by then-District Attorney George Franklin, who declared the incident justified homicide.
But Dr. Otto Ravenholt, the county's chief medical officer and coroner, was suspicious. Inquests were infrequently used in accidental death cases, but he decided to call for one in the North Las Vegas case, which was ruled justified on a 2-1 vote. After that, officer-involved deaths were routinely sent to inquest.
Inquests are a quasi-judicial process, not a trial. Until last year's reforms, a majority of jurors decided whether the officer's actions fit one of three categories:
■ A killing was justified if an officer felt his or her life or the life of another was in danger.
■ A death was excusable if the officer killed while "doing a lawful act, without any intention of killing, yet unfortunately kills another."
■ Anything else was criminal homicide, but that didn't mean the officer would be charged with a crime. Only the prosecutor has that power.
County commissioners last year eliminated those inquest jury verdicts, leaving jurors to determine only basic facts such as when and where the death occurred.
Seattle is the only other major city where fatal police actions go to inquest, and the process there is significantly different: Jurors determine whether the person killed was a threat to officers, and they don't render verdicts about criminal liability. Afterward, King County prosecutors automatically review the case and make a decision on criminality.
Only once has a Clark County coroner's jury deemed police actions criminally negligent. In 1976, Metropolitan Police Department officers Jerry Weaver and Arthur Summers killed 23-year-old Darryl Taylor during a running gunbattle. Jurors voted 2-1 that the killing wasn't justified, though they made it clear they didn't fault the officers for shooting Taylor. They just thought it was excessive to fire 16 rounds at him in a residential neighborhood.
The district attorney's office presented the case to a grand jury, which declined to indict. That was the last time a district attorney is known to have pursued criminal charges following an inquest.
But in 1990, Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa wasn't satisfied with an inquest jury's verdict of justified and then-District Attorney Rex Bell's inaction following the death of casino floorman Charles Bush.
Bush, who was not suspected of any crime, was sleeping when three Las Vegas police officers entered his apartment without a warrant. He struggled with the cops and was choked to death. Del Papa charged all three officers with involuntary manslaughter. A trial ended with a hung jury.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
@vote them out, you may have to re-read the entire article and then, please enlighten us where the author (Mower) expressed his hatred for cops. I think you missed the point. There is nothing fabricated, the article is all based on public records.
ACtually BG the three rulings was one of the problems. Again, people assumed this was a trial for years. I mean after all it sorta looked like one. So then reasonable people started to ask reasonable questions about it. The real problem was no one ever took time to teach people....the fact is the Inquest is a poor system. Its funny that they mention Denver in here because if you go back many months you may recall I provided a linkto the Denver DA office. On i they describe to the public how they investiaget OIS's. They also go on to explain EXACTLY what I have told you and others , that the inquest/grandjury/DA review whatever you call it is not to determine tactics, or right or wrong...simply is it a prosecutable case. Try reading it. Of coiurse these halfwits didnt include that part did they. Another fact is go to ANY city in america nad check their newpaper. They have pretty much the same type of anti cop type crap going after any shooting.....heck..it sells... You guys LOVE cop stories.
A vote them out, if anything written here "just made the job of a police officer even more difficult" the would be your post. Mower provided a largely historical article, based on facts. Basically this was nothing more than a FAQ about the inquests and it didn't make a single judgement. So you are assertion that publishing the facts is "hating the police," that the facts and the police are mortal enemies is more dangerous to your fellow officer than anything that the RJ could ever publish.
@RealityKinpin..."I grow tired of schooling this group. But here it goes again." You got that wrong . I think you meant to say, "I grew tired of schooling." Because you got tired of schooling sometime before they taught you to count to three. While you keep INSISTING that the inquest is there "to determine if the shooting rose to the level of being CRIMINAL. A mistake by the officer does not make it CRIMINAL." So if the inquest is to determine if the shoot was either 1) Criminal or 2) Not Criminal, then why does the jury have three choices. Wait I know, because, as usual you have no idea what you are talking about. But then as you finally admitted, you have only lived in Las Vegas for three years, and while, absolutely zero Law Enforcement or Legal Experience (or the ability to count to three is seems) you would concept as to the history behind the inquest. The excusable option was always meant to be used in cases where "the officer had made mistake," yet that mistake was not due to negligence so severe it should be considered criminal.
Mrs Ed.. The United Nations, really?
Mr, Mower, you should be really proud of yourself for writing such a "hate the police" article. I am sure that it was your intent to cause public uproar and you will sleep good knowing that you just made the job of a police officer even more difficult.
@RealityKingpin the truth is Metro settles most of their civil lawsuits warranted or not, and I totally agree with your assessment of the coroners inquest!
The reality is that this coroners inquest is a joke, and should likely never been instituted. It was well intentioned but really unecesarry, for all involved. Like any other homiced out there, it ahs always been up to the DA to determine if a shooting was criminal. Fact is most officers shootings will NEVER qualify. Most states just do a grand jury . Which is BEHIND closed doors. But again even there an officer getting charged is RARE. The recourse is in civil court. And police depts lose all the time in civil court. The REALITY is that over time people began to think it was a trial which it is not......and if you thought it was a trial then YES, it would look weird or crooked. IT IS NOT A TRIAL. NEVER was. Officer voluntarily showed up over the years.
I grow tired of schooling this group. But here it goes again: The coroners inquest is not desgined to determine if the shooting was right. It is NOT there to determine if the officer had made mistake, or made the corect TACTICAL decisions. It is simply there to determine if the shooting rose to the level of being CRIMINAL. A mistake by the officer does not make it CRIMINAL. For it to rise to CRIMINAL the officer must have INTENT!! Ever heard of it. ANDDDDDd The DA must be able to PROVE INTENT. At the MINIMUM the DA must have PROBABLE CAUSE of intent to commit a crime. Due to the obvious nature of the work of law enforcement it is rather highly unlikely to do this. The Families recourse is in CIVIL court. Which all do sue. And for all of the idiots including these "reporters" that scream that every shooting has been cleared of wrong doing is just a lie! MEtro has lost in CIVIL court several times, and held responsible for someones death. The reporters here likely knew this but still felt compelled to mislead at every turn.
The United Nations should investigate METRO.