|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The San Mateo County civil grand jury charged embattled Sheriff Christina Corpus with willful or corrupt misconduct in office on June 27, according to San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe.
The civil grand jury is a group of 19 volunteer jurists who investigate the operations of local governments. Most of the time, its members issue nonbinding opinions; however, under CA Gov. Code section 3060, they can accuse any elected official of willful or corrupt misconduct, which could lead to the official’s removal from office and bar them from seeking re-election.
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors requested the jury investigate Corpus in November. Over the past four weeks, the jury has subpoenaed 32 witnesses, including Corpus herself, to testify under oath. While the District Attorney’s office selected the 32 witnesses, the jury had the power to subpoena additional witnesses or decline to subpoena those witnesses.
The jury accused Corpus of one count of conflict of interest and three counts of retaliation while denying three other counts of retaliation. The count of conflicts of interest relates to her chief of staff and alleged affair partner Victor Aenlle. The three counts of retaliation pertain to the termination of Assistant Sheriff Ryan Monaghan, the transfer of Capt. Brian Philip, and the arrest of Deputy Sheriff’s Association president Carlos Tapia.
The civil grand jury rejected the allegation that Corpus retaliated against Sheriff’s Office Management Analyst Valerie Barnes, Lt. Stephanie Josephson and Capt. Rebecca Albin.
Corpus’ first hearing will be on July 15 at 9 a.m. in Department 9 in front of Judge Stephanie Garratt. The hearing will be similar to an arraignment in a criminal case, according to Wagstaffe.
Corpus will be able to respond to the accusations and call for a trial. If Corpus does, a second jury of 12 will be called to decide on the accusations.
“It proceeds the same as what goes on in the courthouse day in and day out, with a regular jury of 12 people. The only difference is it’s not to determine if a crime has occurred, like the typical criminal case. This is to determine whether there has been misconduct in office,” Wagstaffe said.
If the jury unanimously determines beyond a reasonable doubt that misconduct occurred, Corpus will be removed from office and barred from seeking re-election. The trial will be open to the public.
In addition to the grand jury proceeding, the Board of Supervisors has voted to remove Corpus as part of the Measure A process. While Wagstaffe acknowledged that his office is following the Measure A process, he said his office decided to pursue a grand jury anyway because of its long history.
“Measure A is a new proceeding, it just got voted on by the voters this spring. The (civil grand jury) accusation process is one that has existed under California law for ever, going back decades. The last time the San Mateo County District Attorney’s office did one was in 1980 or 1981. I was a young prosecutor then. It was to remove a head of a school district,” Wagstaffe said.
Every county in California is required to have a standing civil grand jury as outlined in the California Constitution.
In this case, the civil grand jury was 17 members due to two members having a time conflict.
Corpus’ attorneys have said the District Attorney’s office has a conflict and should not pursue a grand jury.
“We knew that there would be those concerns, so we have on at least eight occasions throughout this process called and spoken to the California Attorney General’s Office… On every occasion, the opinion of the Attorney General’s office was that there is not a conflict. ‘You may proceed,’” Wagstaffe said.
The Attorney General’s Office has a deputy attorney general whose role is to advise prosecutors on potential conflicts of interest in various cases. The office’s opinion is nonbinding and may be overruled by a judge.
Wagstaffe said the most important thing for the public to understand is that this process is separate from Measure A.
“The big thing is to not confuse it with the Measure A. That, to me, is the biggest thing that I think I worry about. People say ‘What is this for? Aren’t we already doing it through measure A?’ I hope people understand that what we’re doing is independent, completely independent,” Wagstaffe said.
Wagstaffe expects the transcript of the 32 witnesses’ statements to be released as part of the new trial. He said the timeline of the trial largely is up to the sheriff and could be well over a year.
This story was updated with information about the allegations the grand jury denied after the accusation was unsealed.
