Coroner Inquest Process Raises Questions of Transparency, Fairness

October 08, 2010

Scott Inquest Renews Calls for Change

As the coroner's inquest into the Erik Scott death comes to a close, calls to reform the inquest process are heating up once again in Clark County, Nevada.

Scott was fatally shot by a Metro police officer outside of a Summerlin Costco this past July. Officer William Mosher was the first to arrive at the scene after a Costco employee called 911 to report the erratic behavior of a customer who had a gun tucked into the waistband of his pants. Mosher stated during the inquest that Scott became defensive and reached for his gun before Mosher shot him twice in the chest.

Prior to the September 23 inquest, Scott's family had not been allowed to review the coroner's report or listen to a recording of the 911 call. In fact, they were given very little information at all about the details leading up to their son's death.

Scott's family told reporters that they have little hope the coroner's inquest will result in a finding of criminal negligence by the police. They said that the process is one-sided and unjust and do not expect to get any real answers about their son's death.

Coroner's Inquest Process

In Clark County, whenever a police officer is involved in a shooting that results in death, a coroner's inquest is held. The inquest is supposed to be a fact-finding hearing, complete with a jury of peers who will determine whether the shooting was justified, excusable or criminal. The inquest is put on by the Clark County District Attorney's office and overseen by a justice of the peace.

Regardless of the jury's findings, the Attorney General's office still can press criminal charges against the officers involved in the shooting. However, this has never happened. Since the inquest process was first introduced 34 years ago, there have been 200 hearings and only one finding that an officer was criminally negligent in a shooting death.

Fairness of Process Heavily Criticized

The Scott family is not the first to accuse the coroner's inquest process of lacking fairness and transparency. Other victims' families have made the same argument, as well as civil rights groups, including the NAACP and the Nevada chapter of the ACLU.

The primary complaint about the inquest procedure concerns the lack of important rights the process affords the victim's families. For example, the family of the shooting victim does not have the right to be heard during the inquest. If the family has an attorney, that attorney is not permitted to ask questions of the police officers or their witnesses during the inquest. Likewise, the family is not allowed to call their own witnesses, who may have a different version of the events than the police's witnesses.

Currently, the only right the victims' families have is to submit written questions, either themselves or through their lawyers, to the justice of the peace overseeing the inquest. The justice then has the discretion to determine which of the questions, if any, will be asked.

This lack of direct involvement by the family has resulted in distrust of the procedure. Many believe the process is one-sided and patently unfair. It does not give the victim's families a feeling that their loved one's deaths are been taken seriously.

Possible Changes to the Inquest System

The calls for reform to the inquest system are coming from all sides. The Nevada chapter of the ACLU and the NAACP are pushing for the victim's families to be given a direct role in the inquests, including allowing them to call their own witnesses and cross-examine the police officers and their witnesses.

Others, including former Clark County Sheriff Bill Young, agree that the victim's families need to have a bigger role in the process to ensure fairness. However, Young believes that the families still should have to submit their questions to the justice of the peace first before being allowed to ask them.

Additionally, there are calls to change the instructions given to the jury at closing. In past inquests, the jury has received instructions on what it means to find the shooting justified and excusable, but not what it means to find the officer criminally liable. Failing to explain criminal liability to the jury seems to suggest that the jury really should not consider it.

Some, however, believe that even if changes are made, this will not have an impact on the number of police officers found criminally liable for shooting deaths. Studies suggest that jurors tend to find police officers to be credible witnesses, even when there is evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion

The last changes to the coroner's inquest process were made in 2006 after the police shooting death of 17-year-old murder suspect Suave Lopez. The changes made at that time included having the inquests overseen by elected justices of the peace rather than appointed hearing masters.

The 2006 changes were criticized for not making any meaningful changes to coroner's inquests. This time around, proponents of change hope that the Clark County Commissioners take the calls for reform more seriously.

Article provided by Ciciliano & Associates, L.L.C.
Visit us at www.cicilianolaw.com