May 05, 2004
(Updated) Recall District Attorney Michael Schrunk
Dereliction Of Duty And Abuse Of Power
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
For the moment, set aside the cogent leading paragraph of this article in today's Willamette Week:
Last week's inquest into the fatal shooting of James Jahar Perez by Portland police officer Jason Sery was largely what the cop's attorney had predicted: "a three-day press conference." Except in this press conference, the most obvious question was neither asked nor answered: Did a drug-addled driver belatedly realize officers were ordering him to take his hand out of his pocket--then get killed for trying to comply?
For the moment, set aside that same article's relevations about Dr. William Lewinski who testified about actions beating reaction:
Lewinski, a law-enforcement professor at Minnesota State University-Mankato, has made a career out of that slogan. A website advertising Lewinski's services describes him as part of a "stable" of legal experts that specializes in "the defense of police officers and their agencies [in] all areas of high liability."
But not everyone has been impressed. In September 2001, a Columbus, Ohio, prosecutor faulted Lewinski's "radical views" after a judge acquitted a cop who had killed an unarmed teenager.
"Dr. Lewinski said that if a police officer perceives a threat, he should shoot," the prosecutor told the Columbus Dispatch. "He doesn't consider whether that perception is reasonable."
Lewinski, who was flown to Portland at city expense, testified not only in last week's public inquest, but also in the secret grand-jury proceedings that, prior to the inquest, decided not to levy criminal charges against Sery.
Even if we set aside these particulars for the moment, the bombshell dropped by today's Oregonian forever and dramatically alters the conversation about how the Perez case has been handled by District Attorney Michael Schrunk:
One of the first cover officers to arrive at the police shooting of James Jahar Perez found a cell phone on Perez's lap. The Multnomah County district attorney did not consider that fact crucial for last week's inquest jury despite urging from Portland police and a city attorney to include it.
"It was not covered in the inquest. We all knew it was nothing of substance. There was no gun, and no one ever said they saw him pull the cell phone and wave it like a gun," District Attorney Michael Schrunk said. "I didn't think it was going to be determinative of anything."
But wait! There's more:
Based on the evidence and testimony, Portland investigators and prosecutors suspect that the "bulge" Macomber reported seeing in Perez's right pocket was likely his cell phone. But neither officer reported seeing a phone, so Schrunk felt it was not a crucial fact for the inquest jury to hear.
"There's speculation it could've been a cell phone," Schrunk said. "But the point is, no one ever said they saw it."
When Macomber and responding Officer Sean Sothern went to handcuff Perez after the shooting, they saw the cell phone on Perez's lap, to the left of his pants zipper. Sothern placed it on the dashboard above the steering wheel, police reports said.
But wait! There's more:
Detective Jon Rhodes, the primary investigator, testified on the first day of the inquest about the $7 found in Perez's right pocket and drugs in his left. The cell phone was not mentioned. On the final day of the inquest, Rhodes approached Schrunk just before the afternoon session was to resume and told him he was willing to be called back to the stand to enter evidence about the cell phone. Deputy City Attorney Dave Woboril also asked Schrunk to include testimony on the cell phone.
Even setting aside the questions raised in today's Willamette Week -- and we don't believe we should, in fact, set them aside -- this startling revelation that Schrunk actively conspired to conceal evidence from the jury of inquest (it's unclear at this point whether he also concealed it from the grand jury, although we suspect that it's likely he did) makes it sickenly clear that Schrunk is not interested in justice, nor does he believe in the mental capacity of jurors -- who are, after all, just normal citizens -- to weigh evidence for themselves.
Clearly, it's entirely possible that the officers did, in fact, see the cell phone and simply decided to not mention it, knowing that it would complicate their stories. It's also possible that they didn't see it. But just as clearly, that's a determination for a jury -- be it grand or inquest -- to make for themselves.
What's more clear is that by withholding such obviously-critical evidence, Schrunk has consciously decided to hold his own elected office, as well as the people he serves, in contempt. But precisely because he is an elected official, those people he serves have a simple recourse.
It's time to recall District Attorney Michael Schrunk.
Update
Of course, with our seething fury-addled brain, we neglected to point out that Schrunk is currently up for re-election in the May 8 primary. Therefore, either a sudden and massive groundswell to defeat him via write-in must appear, or any recall must wait until he is re-seated into his position for a new term -- since recalls are only good for the current term, and conducting one now would only remove him for office for a few months.
In the meantime, it is more vital than ever that the grand jury records be unsealed. There is a clear public interest in determining whether or not Schrunk also deceived that jury in addition to the inquest.
Comments (6)
chris on 05 May 2004
I guess it's kind of late to organize a write-in campaign...
Jon on 05 May 2004
Not so...I know of at least five people now that have written in James Jehar Perez against Shrunk
Jack Bog on 05 May 2004
As soon as Lewinski showed up, you knew the inquest was largely a show presented to try to justify the cops' actions.
Free Marmaduke on 05 May 2004
Wasn't the inquest meant to be a fact-finding exercise? Weren't we warned by people on all sides of the shooting not to get our hopes up about the inquest? An inquest isn't a trial and neither the information nor the people involved are held to the same standards as they would be in an actual trial. It'd be nice to have more satisfaction after the events of last week, but blaming guys like Mike Schrunk for the frailties and shortcomings of the system is like blaming teachers for the declining state of education. That said, I understand that there may yet be a federal investigation (and possible charges, trial etc.) regarding the Perez shooting -- something Mike Schrunk will likely help facilitate one way or the other. Don't give up on justice just yet.
The One True b!X on 05 May 2004
This has nothing to do with a failure of the system. It has to do with Schrunk willfully keeping the existence of evidence from the jury of inquest -- and possible from the grand jury as well.
The One True b!X on 05 May 2004
To put it another way: Schrunk kept claiming that he was using the inquest simply to have a forum for all the information to be made available to the public.
Apparently, what he meant was only that information which he himself previously decided was relevant for the public to know.