April 12, 2004
District Attorney Delays Jury Of Inquiry
Grand Jury To Be Convened First, Officers To Testify Before Both
Not quite breaking news, but almost. District Attorney MIchael Schrunk has decided to postpone the jury of inquest into the officer-involved shooting death of James Jahar Perez until after a grand jury convenes. What follows is the full text of Schrunk's announcement.
I am announcing today that I have decided to delay the inquest into the Perez shooting until after the Multnomah County Grand Jury concludes its inquiry into that incident. That grand jury investigation will begin on April 20, 2004. The proceedings will be recorded and the record will be turned over to the presiding court. If the grand jury does not return an indictment, the public inquest will commence within a week after the conclusion of the grand jury's proceedings. We believe that the grand jury can be completed in several days if there are no problems in securing the attendance of witnesses.
I had hoped to conduct the inquest prior to the grand jury in order to provide the public with complete and accurate information at the earliest possible date. I believe I have the authority to hold an inquest at the time of my choosing and that this authority would ultimately be upheld by the courts. However, the filing of a legal action to block the inquest and possible appeals of any judicial ruling in that action has raised the prospect of significant delay. Additionally, Oregon's expansive immunity provisions create the distinct possibility that the inquest jury would not have full and complete testimony if I proceeded as originally intended.
In conjunction with my decision in this matter, I have received promises that both police officers involved in this tragedy will testify without immunity before both the grand jury and the inquest jury. I have also been assured that the legal action that was brought will be dismissed.
Over the past several days, I have consulted with many in the community regarding this course of action. While I realize that it is an imperfect solution to the current situation, I regard it as the best option.
I know the grand jury will do its work professionally and with great care. Additionally, if an indictment and public trial does not result, we will do everything we can to have the inquest proceeding give the public a full and complete picture of this incident even though the inquest jury cannot make a decision on fault or justification.
I believe the community will be best served by the combination of these proceedings given current law on how such matters must be handled. I have worked to change that law, to bring greater openness to grand jury proceedings and to narrow the expansiveness of immunity. Since my efforts have been unsuccessful, I have made what I believe to be the best decision possible in the current legal environment.
There's a KGW report on this development, but it mainly gives the basic thrust of Schrunk's news release and reminds everyone of the details of the incident in question.
Comments (1)
Rob on 12 Apr 2004
Can't help feeling I wish I had been a "fly on the wall" in the DA's office this past week. Must've been interesting. I think this new decision on the part of the DA is a good thing though. Like I've said before, the inquest is a waste of time anyway since we already know the answers it will be seeking to provide for the public. It's also interesting to note that both officers have promised to testify at the inquest (without immunity)under this new agreement. Naturally, the inquest will only take place if an indictment isn't returned. Seems to me Sery is feeling quite confidant the grand jury will exonerate him. Then again, why not? No officer in the history of the police department has ever been indicted for an officer-involved shooting.