What is an inquest?
An investigation and determination of cause and manner of death, NOT a pronouncement of death
The powers granted and duties imposed on a justice of the peace under this article are independent of the powers and duties of a law enforcement agency investigating a death.
IMO, this is what the citizens of Uvalde county and the parents of Texas school children deserve, and should advocate to institute, a Coroner's Inquest. It's a rare proceedure for special circumstances and creates a "court of record," not a court of criminal law. The result of such a inquiry is merely to determine the cause and manner of death of someone. In this case, the final ruling on cause would likely be, "homicide" 22 times. It merely establishes that this was not a death of natural causes. While this may seem obvious, the valuable part of such a procedure is not the verdict but the process. For an inquest also determines the manner of death, and for that testimony, evidence and autopsies can all be requested to be compelled, and made public.
TL;DR next section is why, and what I think about where I think things stand. And a little about how a Coroner's Inquiry could act as a defacto Truth and Reconciliation commission, possibly. We've already covered enough for anyone to comment.
A Coroner's Inquest can call anyone and everyone to give testimony to a "Court of record" with almost no teeth to it, but has little to no power to make them do it, except that it is the right thing and shows respect for the dead and responsibility to the community. With this we might see where we stand as a community. Given what we've seen so far, all we have is fractured hopes and division. It's a grand and possible, possibly futile gesture to the idea of common decency prevailing over the flawed system that led to this disaster in the first place. A chance for a little peace instead of a lot of disorder. There's nothing that will make this all better, and there is a way things are going that are making things a lot worse. A coroner's inquest could mitigate some of that.
Four months after May 24th's mass shooting, we see that all Law Enforcement (and their always-political "civilian" command) still hide behind a wall of silence, and that supposed "ongoing investigations" are mostly a stall tactic. Not one LEO has given public testimony as to what really happened on May 24th. One and only one of 376 "cops" have spoken to the media at length about what they saw and did and why, and that man is Pete Arredondo, who spoke quite briefly with one reporter with a lawyer present, and seemingly also exchanged some email "clarifications" that aren't very clear and seemingly included key false statements. This interview was conducted before the public has seen a leaked hallway video, and before any supervising investigation body had issued any coherent narrative to the public, so he had free reign to say almost anything at the moment. That's the big issue, to me, that we need a lot more things out in the open.
When your small child and his little friends burn down the garage because someone had the not-so-bright but curious idea to play with matches, you separate the remaining children and get the truth by hearing them tell some truth and also lie about whose fault it is, at great length and with many tears. And then you make them tell it all again, and again. Until their lies and the truth sort themselves out, and the crying stops out of sheer exhaustion. Some of the tears may be yours, but you don't stop until there is clarity. That's where we are now, staring at garage that all the kids didn't escape when it began to blaze and smoke filled the space. But no one is talking.
So on a basic level, no one who was really there on May 24th has spoken to the public in a free environment. Maybe they never will, it's certainly looking like it after four months of lies and stonewalling and sad little games that don't dignify the situation one bit. To me, that's completely unacceptable. People in life have to take responsibility for themselves and their actions, or else things go from bad to worse. They're going that way now, and this needs to change.
After that preemptive interview by Arredondo, who had to know the was being selected as a fall guy, we had a slanted report to the lege, the Senate from DPS, who pushed to bring blame upon Arredondo and deflect it very far away from themselves, omitting the fact that 91 DPS officers were present on scene, and that a mysterious man, DPS Sgt Juan Maldonado was present, a public information officer who has given the public no information, and about whom we've heard nothing but obfuscation and stonewalling.
Then the House committee issues a counter-report, that sadly was devoid of a complete narrative as well, as they had no power or will to speak to any federal LEOs, and that 77 page report arguably was an improvement on the DPS/Senate report but was so far from a complete narrative that it's not worth discussing here. By framing the response as "systemic failure," and leaving it at that, more or less, it was the functional equivalent of throwing up one's hands in despair and walking away sadder but no wiser. Some clarity is not clarity. Despair is not the whole truth.
What I'm trying to say is that we need the truth about Uvalde in order to heal and move on, but we also need the truth to consider what accountability and further preparedness might look like. We have not had this truth. A Coroner's Inquest might provide it, as any and all witnesses and experts on the issue of manner of death can be called to testify at such a public inquest without fear of criminal sanction by the court of record. It is a place for the plain truth to be spoken, openly and to the public without anger-pointing, "CYA" and the blame-game being the object of the affair. Respect for the dead and the truth, and the future of the community is the aim of an Inquest.
Next, a section of supporting facts and links below. You should probably read the first link if you want to make serious comments. The rest gets into the details, and isn't fully necessary but may be of interest to some. I'd love to hear from people in the legal profession, and as always from those who live in Uvalde and have closer contacts with the parents or the authorities, either. This isn't an effort to demonize one group over another. It isn't popular to say here on this group but after four months of study, reflection and inquiry, I have a fair amount of real sympathy for LEOs on the 24th, who faced a more or less impossible situation with no good options. It was a tragedy. There may have been better options or outcomes than what we saw, but none of the outcomes past the moment of 12:37:02 were ideal.
https://www.county.org/TAC/media/TACMedia/Education/Event%20Presentation%20Materials/2018/Fall-Judicial/1-Cobos-Inquests.pdf
This is a power-point style basic presentation of what's involved in a Coroner's inquest with regard to counties that do not have a full time coroner or Medical Examiner. The duty falls to any Justice of the Peace or County Judge, seemingly. It is less than a two minute read, and I suggest you read it first before I also include some links to more dry and technical statutes.
TL;DR
You can stop reading here if you want. The rest is technical talk and links to the exact statutes and speculation about what a non-lawyer, me, thinks they might be saying. I AM NOT A LAWYER. But this is possible, a coroner's inquest, if the will exists in the right place for it to happen. I'm advocating that that place be Uvalde county, now.
Don't feel obliged to read these next links, they are merely relevant statutes. The purpoe of this post is not to litigate legal matters. An inquest can be very informal, and no lawyers need be present at any time for an inquest to be proper conducted. This could happen, if the right people wanted it to. I think they should.
They mostly concern the nuts and bolts of what is possible; but as I am not a lawyer, all I can say here is that. yeah, many things are possible if the will, and the political will behind it, exists. What's more interesting and would take a panel of experts to determine is how such an inquest could try to be stopped. Once called for, it usually seems to occur. I'd like to research some precedent for a case where the powers that be didn't want an inquest, but I can't find one. Most opposition occurs by non-participation, it seems. Not by making the inquest go away.
https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/coroner/texas.html
This is a CDC site, mostly concerned with the POV of general Medical Examiner roles state by state. It does speak to the idea of deputies, which can include deputy investigators, but there seems to be some oversight involved and qualifications imposed.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.49.htm
Are there deputies?(a) The commissioners court of a county may establish an office of death investigator and employ one or more death investigators to provide assistance to those persons in the county who conduct inquests . . . Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 49.23.
The medical examiner may, subject to the approval of the commissioners court, employ such deputy examiners . . . as may be necessary to the proper performance of the duties imposed by this Article upon the medical examiner. Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 49.25.
And here is the statute section, and a couple of relevant passages.
(2) "Inquest" means an investigation into the cause and circumstances of the death of a person, and a determination, made with or without a formal court hearing, as to whether the death was caused by an unlawful act or omission.
(3) "Inquest hearing" means a formal court hearing held to determine whether the death of a person was caused by an unlawful act or omission and, if the death was caused by an unlawful act or omission, to obtain evidence to form the basis of a criminal prosecution.
And here, emphasis mine:
Art. 49.02. APPLICABILITY. This subchapter applies to the inquest into a death occurring in a county that does not have a medical examiner's office or that is not part of a medical examiner's district.
Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 529, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Art. 49.03. POWERS AND DUTIES. The powers granted and duties imposed on a justice of the peace under this article are independent of the powers and duties of a law enforcement agency investigating a death.
Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 529, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Art. 49.04. DEATHS REQUIRING AN INQUEST. (a) A justice of the peace shall conduct an inquest into the death of a person who dies in the county served by the justice if:
(1) the person dies in prison under circumstances other than those described by Section 501.055(b), Government Code, or in jail;
(2) the person dies an unnatural death from a cause other than a legal execution;
(3) the body or a body part of a person is found, the cause or circumstances of death are unknown, and:
(A) the person is identified; or
(B) the person is unidentified;
(4) the circumstances of the death indicate that the death may have been caused by unlawful means;
(5) the person commits suicide or the circumstances of the death indicate that the death may have been caused by suicide;
(6) the person dies without having been attended by a physician;
(7) the person dies while attended by a physician who is unable to certify the cause of death and who requests the justice of the peace to conduct an inquest; or
(8) the person is a child younger than six years of age and an inquest is required by Chapter 264, Family Code.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c) of this section, a physician who attends the death of a person and who is unable to certify the cause of death shall report the death to the justice of the peace of the precinct where the death occurred and request that the justice conduct an inquest.
(c) If a person dies in a hospital or other institution and an attending physician is unable to certify the cause of death, the superintendent or general manager of the hospital or institution shall report the death to the justice of the peace of the precinct where the hospital or institution is located.
(d) A justice of the peace investigating a death described by Subsection (a)(3)(B) shall report the death to the missing children and missing persons information clearinghouse of the Department of Public Safety and the national crime information center not later than the 10th working day after the date the investigation began.
(e) A justice of the peace investigating a death described by Subsection (a)(3)(B), or the justice's designee, shall, not later than the 10th working day after the date that one or more identifying features of the unidentified body are determined or the 60th day after the date the investigation began, whichever is earlier, enter all available identifying features of the unidentified body (fingerprints, dental records, any unusual physical characteristics, and a description of the clothing found on the body) into the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System.
That's what little I know about it. To me it seems not only possible but easy and desirable to this, it's just not very common. If there is anything at all resembling a middle path forward for where we are now, this is it.
The reason it occurred to me is that it happened recently in Los Angeles in the case of a controversial death at the hands of LA Sheriff's deputies, who shot a teenager in the back in a highly suspicious manner. The teen was named Andres Guardado and the cops were clearly acting in a biased and suspicious manner, so much so that the Coroner called for an inquest for the first time in over 30 years. It provided the only 'closure" and justice that the family was provided with, and if you read about it you will see that was scant, but more than had been shown previously. It might even be a stretch to call it a pyrrhic victory of sorts but the amount of truth the public saw did in fact increase greatly, and for that it was most welcome, and called a lot of attention to a situation that needed attention.