Allegations against Sheriff Moore revive debate over San Joaquin County coroner job
Twelve years ago, the Rev. Bob Hailey took the microphone at a county Board of Supervisors meeting and pleaded for an end to the 1930s-era consolidation of the Sheriff’s and Coroner’s offices.
Former Sheriff Baxter Dunn had just resigned after a federal corruption probe. His office had also faced scrutiny for the 2003 asphyxiation death of a jail inmate during a struggle with sheriff’s deputies; it took five months for Dunn to issue a certificate determining the death had been an accident.
It was Dunn — as elected sheriff coroner — who had authority over the investigation of a death involving his own staff.
“When you’ve got a sheriff who’s got to take care of his men, then that’s what he’s gonna do,” Hailey said at the time. “That’s too much power for one individual. No man should have that kind of power unless he can stand up to the truth.”
By a 5-0 vote, however, those county supervisors — all of whom have long since left office — decided to keep the sheriff and coroner melded together, in the interest of saving taxpayer money.
That decision is almost certain to be revisited more than a decade later, after allegations that current Sheriff-Coroner Steve Moore interfered with two forensic pathologists in at least three officer-involved deaths.
One of Moore’s deputies told Dr. Bennet Omalu in August that the sheriff wanted to change the classification of one of those deaths from “homicide” to “accident,” a decision that shocked Omalu, according to memoranda made public by the nationally esteemed physician.
Moore has denied wrongdoing. He acknowledged Friday that splitting the two offices would eliminate these kinds of allegations.
“The decision falls to the supervisors, not me,” Moore said. “I believe I’ve done well and only fulfilled my responsibilities under the law. But if the will of the people is to separate that office, I will not stand in their way.”
Omalu’s revelations are less than a week old, and no formal proposal to separate the functions of sheriff and coroner has yet been made.
“I know there’s talk about it. But this is way premature,” Supervisor Chuck Winn said. “You want to make sure that this is done right.”
Renewed debate
But the issue is certainly ripe for discussion, especially in California, where most counties still use the consolidated sheriff-coroner system (neighboring Calaveras County is one of the few with an independent coroner’s office). On Friday, the California Medical Association called for an “immediate” separation of the two functions in San Joaquin, saying that Omalu and Dr. Susan Parson will consider withdrawing their resignations “once the autonomy and independence of the San Joaquin County Coroner’s Office can be guaranteed.”
Pat Withrow, a retired sheriff ’s sergeant who is running for Moore’s seat next spring, has also recommended decoupling the offices. Withrow says that in place of an elected coroner San Joaquin should have an independent medical examiner’s office led by a physician who is appointed.
“I just think it’s the safest and wisest thing to do,” Withrow said last week. “Whether (the allegations) are true or not, the damage is done. The trust in the process is going to be questioned now every time there is a questionable case or an officer-involved violent act.”
Coroners date back to the days of Richard the Lionheart in 12th-century England. Known then as “crowners,” they were supposed to protect the financial interest of the crown in criminal proceedings. This included conducting death inquests, confiscating property, collecting death taxes and investigating treasure troves, according to a detailed 2009 review by the National Research Council.
The practice carried on in American colonies, with no acknowledgement of the need for medical expertise until 1860, when Maryland first required a physician to be present at a death inquest.
As early as 1928, even before the advent of modern forensic science, experts began recommending that the office of coroner be abolished in favor of scientifically trained staff. Almost 90 years later, this advice appears to have been ignored in some areas, where coroners may be eligible for election simply by being registered
voters with clean criminal records.
‘We need to evolve’
Then there is the coroner’s close link to law enforcement that remains in many counties, even today. About one-third of the U.S. still has coroners or medical examiners that are housed within public safety or law enforcement agencies.
San Joaquin County went down that road in 1933, deciding to merge its Sheriff’s and Coroner’s offices to save money — about $6,329 per year, according to Record archives.
In those days, of course, the county was a much smaller place and the sheriff-coroner’s responsibilities were not as great. Today the county is home to more than 700,000 people, with a Coroner’s Office that handled 738 deaths last year.
San Joaquin County Supervisor Tom Patti said last week that he is interested in the possibility of separating the offices not so much because he’s worried about potential conflicts of interest, but because the jobs of sheriff and coroner have become more complicated and specialized. He brought up the idea with county staff even before the recent allegations made headlines.
“Look at the sciences of both of those worlds,” Patti said. “It has evolved immensely. We need to evolve with it.”
Science usurped?
Interference by law enforcement, however, is a concern, and not just in San Joaquin County.
Much of the sometimes uneasy relationship between the physicians and the cops revolves around the difference between the “cause” of death and the “manner” of death. Pathologists are responsible for determining the cause — for example, a bullet wound to the head. But the coroner, under state law, has responsibility for deciding the manner of death, be it a homicide, suicide, accident, etc.
At times, pathologists have come forward to claim that the manner of death ultimately pronounced by coroners is not scientifically consistent with the cause of death. Dr. Judy Melinek, a contract pathologist in the Bay Area, told state senators last year about a case in which she ruled that a child had died from blunt
force trauma. She told a sheriff’s official that the cause of death should be undetermined, because there wasn’t enough evidence to be more specific.
The coroner disagreed and called the case a homicide. The child’s mother was indicted.
The case was eventually dropped. But not without great expense to the family, Melinek said.
“The mom still has a death certificate for her son that says, ‘homicide,’” Melinek told legislators. “This is wrong. ... No autopsy pathologist should have to defend a death certificate or manner of death determination that can’t be substantiated by science.”
In a 2011 survey conducted by the National Association of Medical Examiners, 22 percent of pathologists said they had experienced political pressure from elected or appointed officials to change death certificates.
“I’m speaking out on behalf of many of my medical colleagues who have had similar experiences, have become frustrated by or have even felt threatened when they spoke out,” Melinek told legislators.
Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill last year that included some new protections for pathologists, such as a requirement that they be consulted by the coroner before a manner of death is issued. However, language that would have given pathologists authority to determine the manner of death as well as the cause was stripped from the bill after objections by sheriffs’ representatives, who argued that sheriff-coroners should decide the manner of death based not only on the pathologists’ findings, but on other aspects of the investigation as well.
Changes elsewhere
In Santa Clara County, an independent medical examiner’s office was set up last year after a forensic pathologist, Michelle Jorden, told county supervisors that she had witnessed the interference of sheriff’s administration and felt there was a “general lack of support for the doctors and staff.”
It cost Santa Clara more than $800,000 per year to hire the staff needed for the new office. It’s unclear what the cost might be in San Joaquin, should this county choose to follow suit.