Today’s Journal editorial weighs in on the Marker Panel:
We said on this page last month that the panel should have subpoena power. The public-safety committee’s plan doesn’t recommend that it be given that power. Getting that power would require approval from the state legislature, which would be a lengthy process with no victory guaranteed.
This review needs to advance. And the city council does have subpoena power. The panel should press the public-safety committee to use that power to subpoena witnesses who refuse to appear before the panel, and the committee should ensure that panel members be able to interview the witnesses it subpoenas.
…..We’ve said that the panel’s job is not to determine guilt or innocence. The public-safety committee’s plan says that as well. It does allow the panel to consider the facts of the case, instead of just the police department’s handling of it. But reopening the question of guilt or innocence is a matter for the courts. It’s past time for District Attorney Tom Keith and lawyers for Smith to move ahead with that part of the process.
I appreciate the fact that the Journal recognizes that the question of guilt or innocence rests with the courts. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see how the editorial writers think that, with its broad fact-finding powers (not to mention subpoena power, as they recommended), the Marker panel won’t strongly suggest guilt or innocence. A strong suggestion of innocence would certainly put Forsyth DA Tom Keith in an awkward position.
I guess this is all part of Winston-Salem’s troubling legacy of race and crime.
