Skip to main contentWhat if you held a public inquest into a controversial police shooting--and nobody came?
That's the prospect faced by District Attorney Mike Schrunk, who will spearhead a public review of the actions of the two police officers involved in the fatal shooting of James Jahar Perez, who dies some 24 seconds after cops pulled him over for failing to use his blinker.
Schrunk called for the inquest at the request of state Sens. Avel Gordly and Margaret Carter and Mayor Vera Katz.
Unfortunately, the two people the public most wants to hear from--the officers involved in the shooting--will almost certainly not testify. In fact, the officer who killed Perez has already filed suit to block the inquest from happening, period.
"I believe the public will be disappointed," says community activist Jo Ann Bowman. "Everyone is going to want to know what happened, why it happened and why the officer made the decision that he did." Because of the inquest's limitations, she says, "I just don't see that happening."
In part, that's because the state's public-inquest law is based on an old English law designed not to put a police officer's actions on trial but simply to determine the medical cause of an individual's death. In this case, that verdict is already known: homicide. But whether that homicide was justified under law, the inquest is not empowered to deduce.
Bowman says she nevertheless supports holding an inquest, adding that a public airing of the facts is preferable to the traditional secret grand jury typically used in cop shootings. The inquest, however, is just "one piece of the whole story," she says.
Deputy District Attorney John Bradley agrees citizens may harbor unrealistic expectations about the public inquest--particularly the "public" aspect of it.
"I think people think they can participate and ask questions," says Bradley. "But that's not part of the process."
Even if the public could ask questions, the officers won't be there to offer answers to them.
On Monday, Jason Sery, the officer who shot Perez, filed a lawsuit to block the inquest, which had been expected to last three days. Sery's attorney, Larry Matasar, said the inquest process is not intended to be used as an exercise in public relations by District Attorney Schrunk.
"He is not holding this inquest for its proper purpose," says Matasar. "Instead, he's having a three-day press conference."
The televised proceedings would inevitably "taint" any criminal proceedings that follow it, says Matasar. That's why his client won't testify willingly, he says--and not because he has anything to hide.
"My client has a constitutional right not to talk about anything," says Matasar. "Yet he gave a complete statement to the investigating detectives. He answered every question they had."
The inquest also holds a risk for prosecutors. If the officers are issued subpoenas in an attempt to override their constitutional right not to speak, Schrunk may be forced to grant them immunity from prosecution. Even if he does not extend such an offer, the officers' attorneys will be able to tie up the subpoenas in court for months, defeating the purpose of the inquest.
That is bad news, says Mayor Vera Katz, who helped spark the inquest. "The public should have an opportunity to hear what they felt, to hear what they were thinking about," she says of the officers. Still, she says, even if this inquest does not work out, hopefully the state can learn from Portland's mistake.
"The inquest is not a perfect tool," she says. "Maybe by doing this we can make recommendations to the Legislature for a better rule."
Schrunk is well aware of the shortcomings. He was in office the last time such an inquest was held, in 1985, on the death of Lloyd Stevens, a black man who was choked by officers. Schrunk watched as the inquest jury departed from its instructions and passed judgment on the officers involved by ruling Stevens' death a "criminally negligent homicide." (When a criminal grand jury considered the case, they came to a different conclusion, and the officers were never charged.)
Even Schrunk likens the 1985 Stevens inquest to a "circus." But, he says, despite all the risks and shortcomings involved with an inquest, he believes it is superior to any of the other proceedings that have followed police shootings in the past--such as a polarizing public hearing or letting inaccurate information circulate publicly without a response.
"It's a dilemma," Schrunk says, "There's no good answer--and there are a lot of worse answers."
WWeek 2015