10/20/98 Houston Chronicle Article on Pedro Oregon Navarro Shooting

Holmes sees no 'whitewash' by Oregon case grand jury

October 20, 1998, 09:09 p.m.

People should wait until they hear all the facts in the Pedro Oregon Navarro shooting before criticizing a grand jury decision to indict only one of the six officers involved on a charge of misdemeanor criminal trespass, Harris County District Attorney John B. Holmes Jr. said Tuesday.

"All is not as it appears to be and the inferences people are making due to the evidence that has been reported do not point to all the facts," Holmes said. "People may be surprised at what develops under oath in open court in this trespass case or in any civil case."

Holmes said prosecutors are barred by law from discussing what is presented to a grand jury. But he did say that this jury had seen all the evidence in the case and much of it is not yet public.

"The grand jury totally and completely explored this," Holmes said. "No stone was left unturned. The tapes (of the grand jury proceedings) will be turned over to the Department of Justice and if they come to some different result, then shame on us."

On July 12, the six officers, acting on an informant's tip, raided Oregon's southwest Houston apartment in search of drugs. They say he was pointing a gun at them, so one officer fired, hitting another officer. When that officer fell, all the others opened fire, hitting Oregon 12 times.

The grand jury spent eight weeks and heard from about 25 witnesses, including the six officers, the medical examiner, relatives of Oregon and people who were in the apartment that night. Grand jurors also heard from Police Chief C.O. Bradford and an expert on blood-splattering.

Lawyers for the Oregon family and the officers were also allowed to suggest witnesses to the grand jury. Prosecutors say the panel heard from all of them.

Holmes acknowledged that prosecutors did not recommend any charges to the grand jury, though such recommendations are standard practice in most cases. But he said it is routine not to make a recommendation in police-involved shootings and domestic disputes.

"We don't usually do it in police shootings or cases like domestic shootings where we don't know what happened until the grand jury investigates," Holmes said. "People who want to make it out as a `whitewash' ... all I'm saying is that it would really be smart to wait until all the evidence is heard."

Before beginning deliberations Monday, grand jurors were presented with a long list of charging options, from murder down to nothing at all.

Holmes said it has been incorrectly reported that Oregon did not have a weapon, the officers were not in uniform and that they kicked in and shot through doors in Oregon's apartment.

Prosecutors and police have said that Oregon did have a handgun and had pointed it at the officers, though tests have shown that the weapon was not fired.

Holmes said "alarmists" who are crying foul over the grand jury's decision should not depend on news reports, but wait until they see all the evidence:

"They're going to be surprised."