The furor over police videos and a report that surfaced late in the legal process directs the spotlight once again on the Spokane Police Department. And, once again, competing stories will battle for public opinion. Critics say the episode shows that the department cannot be trusted. The department says honest mistakes led to the trial delay for a protester arrested at a July 4 rally in Riverfront Park.

The best-case scenario for the department was uttered by spokeswoman Jennifer DeRuwe, who said the delay resulted from “the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.” The department, she says, takes full responsibility and will investigate how this mishap occurred. A day later, it was revealed that a report citing the existence of the video had not been turned over to the prosecution or the defense.

Sounds like a job for that independent ombudsman the city has been promising to deliver. Unfortunately, formation of the position has been dragged out for months. It is especially frustrating to have to rely on a police inquiry into a situation where possible evidence wasn’t turned over in a case involving an anti-police protest.

Granted, the video does not appear to be particularly damning or exculpatory in the case against Michael C. Lyons, who was among those arrested July on misdemeanor trespassing and failure-to-disperse charges. Others struck deals with prosecutors, but Lyons chose to go to trial.

However, the Police Department’s mistake was a big one. Spokane County District Judge Annette Plese called it “disheartening to the court system.” She had blocked out a week for the trial and has a jury pool of 30 people who are now in limbo. She will soon rule on whether the case should be dismissed.

Even the explanation that various members of law enforcement weren’t on the same page is troubling. It suggests a breakdown in the department. Is sloppy communication an ongoing concern? Is the system for handling evidence in need of reform? Who should be held accountable?

Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick has shown herself to be a proponent of accountability, and an internal police review could provide the answers to whether this was a one-time slipup or the result of systemic flaws. But because of self-interest, the credibility of such a report would be questioned.

The department is in a bind. It should be apparent to latter-day holdouts on the ombudsman idea that such an agency could ride to the rescue.