{image1}It can't be all fun being Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann these days: The right hammered him over the slowness of charges in the Election Day tire slashing case, and now he's finally getting hammered from the left over his handling of decades of fatal police shootings.

It's about time.

The constituencies most likely to be upset over the topic are McCann's political bedfellows. That's given him years -- no, decades --of cover that a DA of another political stripe would likely not have enjoyed.

It's simply not credible that none of the Milwaukee police fatal shooting cases over three decades has risen to the level of charges. Even some usual pro-police opinion-makers on the right are saying so now. It's even less credible when you read, as I once did as a reporter, through the hundreds of pages of records on police shooting inquests in a dusty file room at the Milwaukee County Courthouse.

The most recent questionable case involves an off-duty cop, Alfonzo Glover, who shot an unarmed man, Wilbert Prado, eight times mostly in the back. Glover says he thought Prado had a gun.

But critics have largely focused their energy on changing the inquest process; a bill is pending in the Legislature to do just that. And that's misguided.

The inquest issue is a red herring. It takes the focus off the real problem: Why McCann has not EVER charged a cop in a fatal police shooting while DA, in 36 years, with the lone exception of the unusual Daniel Bell case, which involved a guilt-racked cop's confession years after a 1950s era shooting?

That's a startling record. Only once in 36 years. And never for a fatal shooting that occurred during his tenure.

It's not the process that's flawed. It's McCann's use of the power the system vests in him.

Those calling for dramatic changes to inquests misunderstand their purpose. Inquests are not designed to be a trial before a trial; if you had a real trial in any of these cases, you wouldn't need a second one. They are a prosecutor's (or coroner's) tool designed to test the strength of a case before charging, to give a public airing to a case, or to compel people to testify under oath when a prosecutor needs to put the screws to uncooperative witnesses. Thus, they are designed to be the prosecutor's show. They are supposed to be used by a prosecutor to help decide whether to charge.

Critics of inquests have argued that victims' family members and attorneys should have more of a say and should even be allowed to cross examine witnesses. But that would raise the bizarre spectacle of having a trial to decide charging with an attorney for the victim essentially acting as the prosecutor and with the prosecutor essentially acting as the defense attorney for the cop.

If people truly think all the prosecutor is doing is acting as a defense attorney for the cop then that's a pretty damning statement about the prosecutor. The system provides a pretty good recourse already: Vote him out.

Yet McCann never draws any serious opposition.

The fact remains: McCann could issue charges without an inquest. And he could issue charges after an inquest too, even if the jury recommends against them (which inquest juries always do in Milwaukee County).

Calling an inquest provides him with cover not to charge, when the jury comes back against charges. Critics of the process say inquests are flawed because McCann and his deputies shape the inquests toward the end result they want: Justified. I sat through one inquest in which the prosecutor told the jury he didn't believe a crime had been committed by the cop. It was a case with serious lingering questions.

The reason behind the shaping: McCann calls an inquest whenever the family requests it, even in cases where he's already made up his mind that charges are not warranted. If he truly felt something criminal had occurred, he wouldn't call an inquest at all. He'd just issue charges.

One could argue that McCann and his prosecutors should just present the witnesses in a neutral manner to the inquest jury. Inquests should be a search for the truth. But that still logically comes back to the same issue: It's not the process that's flawed; it's the way it's being used. The call for a change in state law hangs on the same premise: That the local DA can't be trusted to be fair. But, again, if that's the case -- why should that DA remain in office?

Of course, in many of the police shooting cases over the years, the cops were clearly justified to shoot. And juries are hesitant to convict cops, especially when they shoot unsavory characters. At least that's the premise; the only time it's really been tested in Milwaukee County was when McCann issued rare charges in a non-fatal police shooting case with some similarities to the Prado case a few years back. The jury acquitted the cop.

In fairness, my review of the files showed that many of the cases over the years that generated the most public outcry at the time -- such as the shooting of a 15-year-old boy in a drug house -- were clearly justified. The boy had leveled a rifle at a cop. And, contrary to public perception, some of the most questionable cases over the years involved minority officers, something that also quelled outrage generated when cases fit the white cop-minority suspect paradigm.

Many of the fatal police shootings are tough cases, with a lot more gray areas than the public hue and cry would suggest, and it's far too easy to second-guess a cop when you've never worn a badge. But why shouldn't trial juries decide the toughest cases?

Because serious questions remain in case after case. In one case, Minnesota Vikings' star Michael Bennett, then a high schooler, claimed he saw an officer basically execute a motorist. In another case, a local minister said he saw an officer execute a Latin King gang member after a foot chase. Why not let trial juries decide the veracity of witnesses such as these?

Focusing on inquests takes the focus off charging decisions. And that's what really matters.

McBride, who wrote another WisPolitics column on McCann in January, is a former Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter and teaches journalism at UW-Milwaukee. She's married to Waukesha County DA Paul Bucher.

The opinions expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect the opinions of OnMilwaukee.com, its advertisers or editorial staff.

Sign up now for a free e-mail election service from WisPolitics.com. Click here.