BY ADRIANA HERNANDEZ
Daily Post Staff Writer
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, which is considering whether to call for a trial to remove Sheriff Christina Corpus for corruption, is expected to issue its decision on Monday, the last day of the fiscal year.
Meanwhile, a judge Friday rejected Corpus’ second attempt to stop the county supervisors from firing her.
San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Nina Shapirshteyn denied Corpus’s request for a temporary restraining order to stop the removal process, saying her request was unjustifiable.
The civil grand jury’s term will end on Monday at 5 p.m. Any cases before the jurors will have to reach a decision by then, according to District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe.
If the grand jury decides to issue an “accusation” against her, the case would proceed to a trial.
A civil grand jury is a group of 19 citizens who act as a watchdog of local government, usually producing non-binding reports on government operations. People volunteer to serve on the panel and their terms last one year.
Under state law, the civil grand jury can start the process of removing an elected official from office by issuing an “accusation.” If the jury issues an accusation, the DA will put the official on trial before a new jury of 12 people. They must reach a unanimous verdict, beyond a reasonable doubt, just like a criminal jury.
But the accused official, if found guilty, doesn’t face the possibility of incarceration. Instead, the only punishment is removal from office, and the official can’t run again.
In Santa Clara County, a civil grand jury brought an accusation against then-sheriff Laurie Smith in 2021 on allegations she mismanaged the jail, falsified campaign finance documents, and exchanged gun permits for campaign donations.
The grand jury looked into Smith at the request of county supervisors. Jurors interviewed 65 witnesses over 15 days with help from Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen’s office.
When the accusations were issued against Smith, San Francisco Assistant District Attorney Gabriel Markoff took over the prosecution. But Smith resigned in October 2022 after the trial ended but before the jury reached its guilty verdict.
In San Mateo County, Corpus’s attorneys filed a motion to stop her from testifying before the civil grand jury, claiming Wagstaffe’s office had a conflict of interest. They also claimed it was a conflict that he is investigating Corpus on criminal charges while also presenting a case to the civil grand jury.
Wagstaffe said his office was looking into allegations against Corpus and her former chief of staff, Victor Aenlle, contained in a 400-page report by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell, who had been hired by the Board of Supervisors to conduct an investigation into HR complaints in the Sheriff’s Office.
This is the second time Corpus has tried to stop the removal process that started in March with a vote approving Measure A, which gave the Board of Supervisors the ability to fire a sheriff.
On June 9, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Nicole Healy denied Corpus’s first request to stop the process. Healy said it was premature, as the process had already started.
On June 24, supervisors unanimously voted to fire Corpus. Corpus has said she plans to appeal the board’s vote, adding more time to the process.
Corpus is accused of corruption, including conflicts of interest, nepotism, retaliation, intimidation and making racial and homophobic slurs.
“When people ask you what happened on Monday, June 30th, tell them the North remembers. Tell them Winter came for House VicTina.”
Netflix needs to make this into a docuseries. She broke the glass ceiling only to tank her whole career to be Napoleon’s mistress. smh.
Since February multiple attempts to stop Measure A have failed because it is the legal right to implement it when wrongdoing exists.
Noone believes the “I have done nothing wrong” idiocracy. The civil grand jury will demonstrate that next.
How many times and ways can Superior Court judges tell Corpus the gig I up, let Measure A play out and the world can see what you’ve done. If after all the steps to remove the sheriff result in a 5-0 vote then there is ample proof of wrongdoing and removal is justified.
Apparently, Corpus isn’t surprised on the 5-0 votes because she knows there is proof of wrongdoing yet she so adamantly wastes tax payer money and time in office. What really puzzles me is the support Mueller and Corzo had for Corpus helping her campaign- was that biased too or was that ok? When Mueller and Corzo told the public they’ve witnessed wrongdoing that is supposedly biased?
Based on new evidence MOUNDS OF EVIDENCE in front of of the board 3 investigations later and a ballot Measure implemented this UNTRUSTWORTHY SHERIFF lies and attempts to defame multiple county employees. The statements the Sheriff makes contradict her emails and prior public statements. She rehearses and then somehow believes that is the truth- sociopath and narcissist at its best.
I myself lose sleep over this situation knowing someone dangerous and untrustworthy has access to the Sheriff office and has hired a corrupt executive team Dan Parea and the corrupt Assistant Sheriff. All of them about to go.
When are we going to hear that the county caused her mental illness and she steps down on medical leave because of it. She will never admit fault, that would be too ethical.
The most interesting thing, to me, about that possibility, is that their “accusation” document, what would serve as the basis for the case in Superior Court, would, I believe, be public. We would finally get to see DA Steve Wagstaffe’s version of a list of things Corpus is charged with doing wrongfully in office.
This, in contrast to the Notice of Intent charges on which the Supervisors approved a “final decision” on June 24th, which so far we haven’t been permitted to see, owing to alleged Police Officer’s Bill of Rights grounds.
Also on June 24th, don’t forget, County Attorney Nibbelin promised that he and staff would look into Supervisor Mueller’s request around 29:09 in the video recording, following Thomas Mazzucco’s cherry-picked public quotation of a single sentence from Chief Keene’s written findings:
Nibellin: “I think the question of whether or not the letter ought to be released, from Chief Keene: I have a sense that it probably should be, but I want to make sure that we’re not stepping on anything or creating issues that we otherwise like to avoid. Again, it’s my recommendation that we discuss this in closed session.” Mueller: “To be clear, Mr. Nibbelin, my request is to look into whether the full record, including the Notice of Intent, all of the items, become public. You can’t selectively choose from one piece and share that with the public, and not share all of it out of context.” Nibellin: “We will absolutely analyze that issue, and report back.”
This long kiss-goodbye continues to destroy the morale of the Sheriff’s office employees. How many people will this Sheriff fire or IA before she is finally escorted out those doors? Police officers are sworn in to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state they serve in. They pledge to perform their duties faithfully, maintain high ethical standards, and protect the public with integrity. Their oath is a formal declaration of their commitment to these principles. How can we ensure in San Mateo County that all future Chiefs and Sheriffs stay true to their oath? This Sheriff will be remembered on the internet and in our community as the worst Sheriff in San Mateo County history. Such notable accolades to share with her future colleagues. If she was a smart lady, she would go out quietly and apologize to our taxpayers for wasting their money on ridiculous legal fees when this money could have been allocated to helping the people who needed it the most. It just proves she has no moral compass.
Should an Accusation be returned by the Grand Jury, the Government Code explains the process to follow:
• §3063 directs the DA to have a copy of the accusation served upon the defendant, and by notice in writing require the accused to appear before the superior court, at a time stated in the notice (appearance shall not be required in less than 10 days from the service of the notice), and answer the accusation.
• §3064 permits sufficient cause for the court to set another date. Otherwise the court may hear and determine the accusation.
• §3065 provides that the defendant may object to the sufficiency of, or deny, the accusation.
• §3068 requires that if objection is insufficient, defendant shall answer thereto forthwith.
• §3069 explains that if defendant pleads guilty, or refuses to answer the accusation, the court shall render judgment of conviction against them. If they deny the matters charged, the court shall immediately, or at such time as it appoints, try the accusation.
• §3070 requires the trial to be by a jury, and conducted in all respects in the same manner as the trial of an indictment.
• §3071 explains that the DA and the defendant are each entitled to such process as is necessary to enforce the attendance of witnesses as upon a trial of an indictment.
• §3072 requires that, upon a conviction and at the time appointed by the court, it shall pronounce judgment that the defendant be removed from office. To warrant a removal, the judgment shall be entered upon the minutes, and the causes of removal shall be assigned therein.
• §3074 provides that any officer subject to removal pursuant to this article may be removed from office for willful or corrupt misconduct in office occurring at any time within the six years immediately preceding the presentation of an accusation by the grand jury.
• §3075 provides that a proceeding under this article, an appeal is to the court of appeal.
When their is Sheriff wrongdoing submitted to the Grand Jury is it handled differently in any other county? Do any other Sheriff’s try and say you can’t do that because you are the prosector, juror, etc and it isn’t fair?
There is Measure A from the Board of Supervisors… so what is suggested to resolve all of these issues ignore them and pretend there are no injustices going on? Hide all of the investigations from the public so that the Sheriff can be the one to mislead the public?
Or better yet pretend like the Sheriff is innocent, has done nothing wrong and the entire county is corrupt and all of these sheriff employees are disgruntled. All of these people that supported this Sheriff a couple years ago they are all corrupt and it is politically motivated somehow. Right, that is likely believable at this point.
There are some serious issues with people concluding the public is being misled by the county. What exactly would be the reason for that? someone explain that logic? The sheriff is on trial here not the county… if she had a problem and knew about these corrupt people why has she done nothing about that until she is being accused of wrongdoing?
Some commenters elsewhere have claimed that the four civil grand jury charges may become “unsealed” when the resulting Superior Court case (#25-CIV-04846, People v. Corpus) convenes on July 15th. However, in fact, they’re already readable online via the complaint documant in S.M.C. Superior Court’s online case records.
Actually the civil grand jury’s three page accusation against Corpus can be found in a link at the top of the story posted yesterday titled “Grand jury returns ‘accusation’ against sheriff”.
Observer, yes, that is true — _because_ that is PA Daily Post’s additional, separate copy of the complaint made online yesterday via S.M.C. Superior Court’s online case records for (new) case 25-CIV-04846.
My point, in any event, was to respond to widely seen claims that the civil grand jury’s findings currently await being unsealed by Superior Court. (Admittedly, I should re-find those and respond directly, but I happened to be here.)