San Mateo County sheriff removal hearing ends

Over 10 days, attorneys representing both San Mateo County and Sheriff Corpus presented their cases with varying degrees of relevance and hard evidence to support, but one thing remained an understood throughline of the court proceedings — the sheriff is a politician. 

Whether that politician can or should be removed from office is the crux of many debates regarding sheriff’s offices throughout the country, but San Mateo County may be the first to remove the elected cop. 

Taking in the testimonies of 36 witnesses and more than 1,000 exhibits of evidence, the hearing officer retired Judge James Emerson will make a formal recommendation to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors within 45 days whether there is enough cause to remove Corpus from office. 

Franco Muzzio, attorney on behalf of the county, made his closing argument outlining four areas of misconduct — a close personal relationship with Victor Aenlle that caused conflict of interest, retaliation against perceived disloyalty, obstruction of investigations and neglect of her duties as sheriff. 

“The evidence in this case against Sheriff Christina Corpus is compelling, overwhelming and deeply troubling,” Muzzio said. “It establishes a pattern of deliberate misconduct, gross mismanagement and flagrant disregard for the law as the chief law enforcement officer in San Mateo County.” 

Trust

Trust was a hot topic of the hearing from both sides. 

On one side, there is a sheriff who said most of her personnel, and County Executive Mike Callagy, undermined her authority. On the other hand, there is an overworked Sheriff’s Office staff who felt their leader would not listen to their concerns and could not be relied upon to keep their interests in mind. 

Friday morning, Corpus took the stand again, bookending the hearing and taking a final opportunity to make her case to keep her job. She was asked by her attorneys about numerous testimonies she witnessed, discrediting most. 

Corpus shared a “list of liars,” as the county’s attorneys described it, which included a large portion of the witness list. 

“You can’t send somebody to a training or revisit trust,” Corpus said on the stand. “Once it’s broken, it’s broken.” 

The county’s attorneys quoted Corpus to prove their own point. They describe Corpus’ defense as “self-serving explanations” for her misconduct that avoid accountability. 

Thomas Mazzucco, lead attorney representing the sheriff, asked Corpus why she comes in to work every day despite the resistance. 

Emotional testimony

Choked up with tears, the sheriff answered at length, referencing her experience when she was carjacked at 16 years old, the injustices she’s witnessed in communities, her children and the harassment they’ve endured in public following the public release of the retired Judge LaDoris Cordell investigative report in November 2024. 

“I think about my people, people I met while I was out on my campaign and the promise I made to them that I would do the right thing even if it was at the cost of myself,” Corpus said. 

Circumstance and culture were the cause for how the sheriff acted, her attorneys worked to establish, however, they maintain she has done nothing wrong.  

During the final cross examination of the hearing, Jan Little, lead attorney representing the county, asked Corpus about overcoming immense personal challenges, running a campaign with a vision for change, garnering support of community members and championing diversity. Little acknowledged all the sheriff has endured.

“But as a law enforcement officer, you know more than anyone, that good work does not excuse wrongful conduct, correct?” Little asked Corpus. 

Little argued that multiple things can be true at once — Corpus could work for significant cultural change as the first Latina sheriff in a male dominated workforce, and there can be evidence she retaliated against those who opposed those changes. 

Contradictions and alleged conflicts

The defense for some of the allegations in Corpus were contradicted by her defense of others. 

Corpus said she was too busy to be responsible for overseeing each investigation undertaken by the Professional Standards Bureau and that she had to rely on her captains, lieutenants and sergeants to do the work. She also argued it was insubordination when her staff in charge of the unit looked into matters without her prior consultation. 

The alleged delays of investigations awaiting Corpus’ final decision, of which there are supposedly 38, stand in “stark contrast” to how the investigation and arrest was conducted of Deputy Carlos Tapia on Nov. 12, 2024, Muzzio said. 

Tapia was arrested without warrant the morning the Cordell investigation was slated to be released to the public, but Corpus said she wasn’t aware of that. 

The report was set to be released following a press conference at 4 p.m. Nov. 12, 2024. Tapia was ordered to surrender by 1 p.m. that same day. By 3:30 p.m., Aenlle’s personal attorney emailed the county a letter stating that a key informant in the investigative report should be discredited because he was arrested. 

Corpus’ alleged close relationship with Aenlle, her former chief of staff, and the subsequent conflict of interest that resulted from it is foundational to the concerns of Corpus’ leadership and case against her. 

“Your honor, I would not compromise my integrity, my oath of office, for anyone or anything,” Corpus said. 

Aenlle’s “strong personality” was just too much for some, Corpus said. 

“He’s very direct, there’s no doubt about that,” Corpus said. “He is very straightforward and some people don’t like that.”

Tom Perez, who joined Corpus’ legal team just ahead of the hearing, defended her dynamic with Aenlle by stating Bill Clinton’s first chief of staff was his kindergarten classmate. 

The dynamic between Corpus and Aenlle raised concern from many early on, but one witness, Valerie Barnes, was the only one to testify to the fact that it was intimate in nature. Barnes recalled foot rubs, a kiss and shoulder rubs between the two. 

Barnes was also a key witness, cited anonymously as “civil employee #3” in the Cordell investigation, which Corpus’ attorneys are now working to have removed from the county’s website and identified as including false information. 

Perez described the Cordell report as a “discredited, inaccurate piece of you know what.” 

In a letter to the Board of Supervisors Friday, Corpus’ lawyers demanded County Executive Mike Callagy remove the Cordell investigative report from the county’s website and “publish a disclaimer stating that the county has learned that the report contains information that has been proven false regarding the alleged romantic relationship between Sheriff Corpus and Mr. Aenlle.” 

Muzzio said even if the relationship between Corpus and Aenlle is not romantic, it was close and personal enough that Corpus chose to maintain his role in the office, and advocate on his behalf extensively, rather than hear the concerns from her staff. 

Next steps

Emerson will have 45 days to provide an official written advisory opinion to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. The advisory opinion is gauged upon the “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof — which means that the evidence shows something was more likely than not to have occurred. 

The Board of Supervisors will then have 30 days from when they receive the advisory opinion to review and vote on whether there is established cause to remove Corpus. A four-fifths vote must be cast to support the removal. If such a vote is cast, the sheriff’s removal will be effective immediately.

Should a vacancy occur, the board must decide within 30 days either to make an appointment or order a special election to occur.