Opinion: A criminal charge against Corpus might not have mattered much in the bigger picture

BY DAVE PRICE
Daily Post Editor

I have a great deal of respect for San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. Over the years, I’ve seen him make difficult decisions without bending to politics or pressure from special interests. So I’m perplexed by his decision not to bring criminal charges against former sheriff Christina Corpus, who was fired for corruption. 

I think there was enough evidence to charge her with false arrest for ordering the arrest of a political opponent, deputies union president Carlos Tapia, on a bogus timecard charge. Wagstaffe himself said the timecard charge against Tapia wasn’t justified.

In fact, Capt. Brian Philip quit rather than carry out Corpus’s order to arrest Tapia.

And an independent hearing officer, who reviewed the evidence in the case and heard testimony, said the arrest of Tapia was one of the reasons why the Board of Supervisors should fire Corpus.

Wagstaffe’s decision sends the wrong message. To law enforcement officers, it says that they won’t face serious consequences for a false arrest. I doubt Wagstaffe wants to leave that impression, but that’s one way to read this. 

On the other hand, convicting Corpus of false arrest might not matter much in the bigger picture. 

A misdemeanor

If she were to be charged with false arrest, it would probably be a misdemeanor. It would only rise to a felony if there were aggravating circumstances, like if she used violence or had kidnapped Tapia. Nobody is alleging that here. 

If convicted of a misdemeanor, a defendant like her with no criminal history would get probation or community service. So what’s the point? 

A low-stakes trial

If you want to see Corpus stand trial, that could still happen. A civil grand jury has brought four “accusations” against the former sheriff that will lead to a trial. But a civil grand jury’s powers are extremely limited. If a public official is convicted of an accusation brought by a civil grand jury, the most severe consequences the official could face are removal from office and a ban from ever holding elected office again. 

Corpus has already been removed from office, and it’s unlikely she could ever get elected to anything in the future. As a result, there won’t be much at stake at such a trial. She could probably save herself the legal fees of a trial and just accept the accusations in order to prevent a trial and move on with her life.

Civil suits remain

Yes, there are numerous civil suits against her, but in nearly every case, the county is also named as a defendant because the government has the deep pockets. It’s doubtful those cases will ever go to trial. They’ll get settled out of court with a brief press release in which both sides claim they were blameless. But you — the taxpayer — will be stuck with the bill.

So her case will end not with a bang but a whimper, to quote T.S. Eliot.

One footnote: She will be walking away with a pension that pays her $402,338 a year along with health care benefits worth $75,307.44 annually. She’ll get those benefits, with inflation adjustments, until her death. She’s 55. The Board of Supervisors, who decided to fire Corpus, has made no effort to claw back her post employment benefits. 

Editor Dave Price’s column appears on Mondays.