|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Embattled San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus broke down sobbing on the witness stand Friday morning when one of her lawyers asked why she continues to come to work despite all the opposition she has encountered amid accusations of corruption and other offenses in her administration.
“I think about the community and the injustices that have happened in the communities,” Corpus replied in tears. “I think about my family and what they’ve had to go through … I’ve fought tooth and nail to where I’ve gotten today with integrity.”
It was the second time that Corpus took the stand, capping the 10-day public hearing in San Mateo County Superior Court in Redwood City for her potential removal from office.
Corpus first gave her testimony early in the proceedings that began on Aug. 18, refuting the county attorneys’ portrayal of her tenure as being afflicted with allegations of abuse of power, conflicts of interest, retaliation against subordinates, and an inappropriate relationship with her then-chief of staff.
A 408-page report from a county-commissioned independent investigation by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell laid out those suspicions late last year.
A subsequent investigation by law firm Keker, Van Nest & Peters – which also represented the county in the Corpus hearing – yielded similar findings and concluded that some of the sheriff’s actions could amount to grounds for her removal.
Corpus has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, and that continued Friday when, before presiding Judge James Emerson, the sheriff called out her accusers as having “no validity” and “just people who want me out.”
After Corpus’ final testimony, her legal team and the county’s attorneys presented their competing closing statements to Emerson.
The county team asserted before Emerson that it met the burden of proof in the hearing showing Corpus committed the alleged violations – including the arrest of deputy sheriff’s union president Carlos Tapia and transfers of other employees as forms of retaliation and engaging in an improper relationship with former Chief of Staff Victor Aenlle, among other evidence.
“For the integrity of the office of the sheriff, she must be removed,” said Franco Muzzio, a member of the county team.
Brook Dooley, another attorney for the county, urged Emerson not to get distracted by Corpus and her lawyers’ attempts to deflect central issues – including her alleged flagrant or repeated neglect of duty and obstruction of an investigation into her administration.
Corpus continually points the blame at everyone else but her, Dooley told the judge. “She can’t take responsibility. She can’t hold herself accountable.”
Dooley added that among the many pieces of evidence for Corpus’ romantic ties with Aenlle are personal text messages between the sheriff and her former colleague Valerie Barnes.
During the hearing, the county team contended that those texts and witness testimony indicated Corpus’ relationship with Aenlle went beyond professional. That kind of relationship raised conflict-of-interest issues as it benefited Aenlle in his position and pay, the county team argued.
In its closing arguments, Corpus’ team countered that the county did not meet the burden of proof.
Rather, Corpus lawyer Mariah Cooks told Emerson, the county has “tried desperately to string together facts. … They had a conclusion, and they found people to make that conclusion.”
The county’s evidence for a romantic relationship between Corpus and Aenlle is weak at best, Cooks also said, arguing that it mostly hinged on a disgruntled employee in Barnes.
Tom Perez, another Corpus attorney and former federal official under Presidents Obama and Biden, described the case against his client as having been “reverse engineered” since she was elected as sheriff in 2022.
Since her election, Perez said in court, Corpus and her efforts to bring culture change to the Sheriff’s Office have been met with constant opposition.
That resistance included a flawed Cordell report, Perez said. “It is not worth the paper it’s written on.”
Outside the courthouse following the hearing’s conclusion, Corpus – flanked by her team and supporters – met with the media.
“I had the opportunity to tell my story,” Corpus told reporters. “I had the opportunity to confront … the people that are accusing me. … And yet the county did not prove that I did anything wrong. Because as the sheriff, I can transfer people for the needs of the organization. I can make promotions. I can hire and I can fire people, yet I have everyone that’s saying that I’m retaliating because I am doing my job that the voters of San Mateo County voted me to do.”
County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci also talked with reporters after the hearing.
“We have confidence in the integrity of the process that played out,” Milionis Verducci said. The county’s attorneys presented evidence that they believe “is compelling, overwhelming and very troubling.”
The county team also felt it “established a pattern of gross mismanagement and flagrant disregard of the law,” she said.
Emerson now has up to 45 days to recommend whether there is cause to relieve the sheriff of her command. County supervisors, once they receive Emerson’s recommendation, then have 30 days to make their final decision on whether to fire Corpus.
The hearing was a result of Corpus’ appeal of the supervisors’ vote in June to oust her based on alleged misconduct.
Measure A, which voters passed earlier this year, granted supervisors the power to amend the county charter to seek her ouster.
