Coroner’s inquests should go

Regardless of the outcome in the Steen case, it’s apparent that the coroner’s inquest process is innately unfair, woefully outdated, and most of all, completely unnecessary.

In an inquest proceeding, the State Attorney takes a supposedly “non-adversarial” position, presenting evidence and witnesses to a judge who sits as a coroner. The judge then makes a non-binding recommendation as to whether the death was the result of a criminal act, criminal negligence, or foul play. The case then goes back to the State Attorney, who can do whatever he wants.

Contrast that with how homicides are usually handled: either the State Attorney’s office makes a decision internally on whether or not to prosecute, or the case is presented to a grand jury, which decides whether or not probable cause exists to charge someone with the crime.

In recent years, the inquest process seems to be reserved for deaths in which law enforcement officers were involved. Why the special treatment?

Inquests unfair

According to State Attorney Bill Eddins, his office’s policy of calling coroner’s inquests in all law enforcement-related deaths was enacted more than fifteen years ago under his predecessor, Curtis Golden. Assistant State Attorney Greg Marcille told the News Journal that the inquest process was “preferable” in law enforcement-related deaths because it’s “a public proceeding and the general public and the media can see the evidence as it’s unfolded.”

That’s part of the problem. The fact that the inquest is a public process handicaps the State Attorney’s office if they did decide to prosecute. The process gives the defense insight into the prosecution’s theory and strategy. It allows the media to freely disseminate evidence and testimony, potentially tainting the jury pool and essentially guaranteeing the defense a change of venue if a prosecution did ensue.

Willie Meggs, the State Attorney in the Second Judicial Circuit, discontinued the use of coroner’s inquests when he was elected to office. He told the News Journal: “I adopted a policy when I got elected that I present all police shootings to the grand jury. I don’t think they’re corruptible. They don’t ask to be there. I tell them what I know, and they tell me what they think.”

Outdated procedure

The coroner’s inquest dates from a time before medical examiners, forensic science, and investigative technology. Florida’s 1885 constitution set forward the procedure by which justices of the peace (later county judges) served as coroners at inquests into unnatural deaths. The coroner’s decision was binding, and if a felony determination was made, an arrest warrant was issued automatically by operation of law.

With the advent of modern medical examiners, the procedure became unnecessary and was largely eliminated by 1977 reforms. The laws regarding coroner’s inquests were repealed and replaced with an elective procedure in which the judge’s decision is nonbinding. The historical functions of a coroner’s inquest are now fulfilled by law enforcement agencies, medical examiners, and State Attorneys.

Recent history of inquests

Escambia County’s recent history of coroner’s inquests speaks for itself. Since 1998, twelve inquests have been held, all involving law enforcement officers. None of the twelve inquests result in prosecutions. In five of the cases, the force used by officers was deemed to be justified; in another five, “no probable cause” of a crime was found. In the remaining two cases, it was found that the officers contributed to the deaths, but no charges were filed.

Political decision

In reality, the decision to call a coroner’s inquest is a fully political one. It allows the State Attorney to pass the buck, to not have to be responsible for prosecuting controversial cases. No State Attorney wants to get involved in racially-charged cases involving law enforcement agencies with which the State Attorney’s office works closely on a daily basis.

For example, if the inquest into Victor Steen’s death determines that there is no probable cause that a criminal act took place, Mr. Eddins can simply close the case and point to the judge’s decision in the inquest for political cover.

Victims, families deserve due process

A legitimate argument can be made that the coroner’s inquest process deprives victims and their families of due process. In practical terms, a decision by a State Attorney to call a coroner’s inquest means there won’t be a prosecution. Even if there were, any prosecution would be handicapped out of the gate by the inquest process.

In recent history inquests have proven to be little more than dog-and-pony shows in which evidence, witnesses, and other case material is dumped in a public setting. Those who die unnatural deaths during encounters with law enforcement officers, and their families, deserve the  courtesy of having access to the same process afforded to others.