San Mateo County sheriff gets emotional on last day of removal hearing
Sheriff Corpus shows confidence and emotion in final testimony for her removal hearing: "I did nothing wrong"
San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus finished a 10-day hearing Friday with final testimony, telling Judge James Emerson "I did nothing wrong."
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - San Mateo County and the defense team for Sheriff Cristina Corpus finished presenting their cases Friday in the 10-day administrative removal hearing requested by Corpus after the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted to remove her from elected office.
Corpus was the only witness Friday to take the stand on the final day. It was her second time testifying during her removal hearing. At one point, she became very emotional, saying she was continuing to fight for her job to speak up for community members.
She also said she's never done any of the actions she's been accused of, and has always worked with integrity.
Two reports by former Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge LaDoris Cordell and the county's legal team, Keker, Van Nest, and Peters, had recommended Corpus' removal for her alleged retaliation and conflict of interest in hiring her close friend, Victor Aenlle as her Chief of Staff.
'The evidence in this case is compelling, overwhelming and deeply troubling," Franco Muzzio, an attorney with the law firm Keker, Van Nest, and Peters that represents the county, said.
Muzzio used slides on a large monitor to show Judge James Emerson the four main allegations of misconduct in the case against Sheriff Corpus.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ALLEGATION
First, Muzzio cited a conflict of interest, saying the Sheriff hired her close friend Victor Aenlle as chief of staff and requested pay increases multiple times.
"Whether that relationship was romantic or not does not matter under the law. What matters is it was close enough...that it created a conflict of interest," Muzzio said.
The sheriff and Aenlle, under oath, denied having any romantic relationship. Sheriff Corpus countered that Aenlle was a civilian who loyally backed her vision of 21st century policing, against members of the office who resisted change. She testified that her own transition team members and some captains were not loyal and therefore she did not appoint them to positions in the office.
VIOLATION OF LAW AND RETALIATION ALLEGATION
Second, the attorney for the county said the Sheriff had violated the law by retaliating against command staff and others who testified she had reassigned them to other jobs.
The sheriff said she was filling positions due to short staffing and followed seniority protocols in some cases. She mentioned the case of Sgt.
"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 saying i am retaliating because i am doing my job that the voters of San Mateo County voted me to do," Corpus said.
"Kecker felt they established a pattern of gross mismanagement and flagrant disregard of the law," San Mateo County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci said.
NEGLECT OF DUTIES ALLEGATION
Third, the county said corpus showed flagrant or repeated neglect of duties...alleging she delayed action on 38 professional standards investigations.
Corpus testified that the Undersheriff handles those cases, and she had not received them for final sign-off.
Corpus also defiantly challenged the county attorneys, saying she was heading up a large office of hundreds of staff and that she had lost faith in members of her command team.
OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATION
The county's fourth point was obstruction of investigations . Sheriff Corpus is accused of illegally arresting deputy Carlos Tapia, the union president, for time-card fraud...
The sheriff testified she had relied on Asst. Sheriff Matt Fox, who told her there was overwhelming evidence that Tapia was inaccurately filling out his time-card.
She also testified that she did not retaliate against staff who spoke with retired Judge LaDoris Cordell for the controversial report that initially was commissioned by the Board oF Supervisors to investigate internal Sheriff's office staff complaints.
Corpus stated that she reassigned some command staff for staffing reasons, not retaliation, and that hiring a civilian was part of her goal for 21st century policing, not conflict of interest.
Jan Little, an attorney representing the county, went through a list of witnesses asking if they were all liars.
Corpus responded yes, that she felt some were lying. She also stated that as a result of the removal process, she supports an Inspector General be established to look over the department.
"The fundamental job of a sheriff is to protect the community," Tom Perez, an attorney on Sheriff Corpus's legal team, said. She has changed and transformed the culture of the department. She still has work to do, and she still has opposition."
"The folks in opposition didn't use the recall process. Why? The voters spoke very clearly," Perez stated.
The county's attorneys declined to comment afterward.
Some community members came to the final day to show their support, saying they felt the Sheriff had built good relationships and trust with communities of color in San Mateo County, and that they oppose any decision to remove her from office.
Retired Judge James Emerson, who is presiding over the civil hearing, has 45 days to make a recommendation on whether Corpus should be removed.
The supervisors then have 30 days after that to decide what to do.