Long-awaited hearings on whether to remove San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus from office will begin Monday and run until Aug. 29, marking the first time corruption and misconduct allegations against the county’s first Latina sheriff will be tested in a public forum.

The proceedings stem from complaints raised nearly a year ago by two sheriff’s unions alleging corruption, workplace misconduct, bullying and an inappropriate relationship between Corpus and her former chief of staff, Victor Aenlle. Last year, the county released a 400-page investigative report by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell, which intensified calls for her ouster.

Related Articles

Federal judge rejects San Mateo County sheriff’s bid to halt removal process

San Mateo County sheriff seeks federal injunction to stop ouster

Sheriff removal hearing will be open to the public, San Mateo County says

San Mateo County supports public access to Sheriff Corpus removal hearing

Editorial: Open up secret Sheriff Corpus removal hearings now

Corpus, elected in 2022, has denied all accusations and refused to resign despite mounting political pressure.

The allegations prompted a special election in March, when voters granted the Board of Supervisors authority to remove an elected sheriff until 2028, the end of Corpus’ term. Measure A made San Mateo the first Bay Area county to give its board that authority.

Other counties, including Santa Clara, Contra Costa and Solano, have seen public tensions between boards and sheriffs but have not sought similar powers. In 2022, Los Angeles County voters approved a measure allowing supervisors to remove a sheriff for misconduct or neglect of duty, though that authority has not been used. Corpus also faces a separate removal process through a civil grand jury accusation that was filed in June.

If removed, Corpus would be the first elected sheriff in California to be ousted by a county Board of Supervisors, a process that has come with a steep price tag.

The March special election cost at least $4.4 million, according to appropriations requests approved in May. Cordell was paid $200,000 for her report, according to the county. San Mateo has also hired multiple law firms to draft removal procedures, conduct another investigation — known as the “Keker report” — and defend the county in court and represent it during the hearings, among other costs.

Two law firms, Hanson Bridgett and Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, were contracted to work on the removal process and the case against Corpus. This news organization filed a public records request in May, seeking to find out how much in taxpayer funds was spent on the county’s efforts to remove the sheriff, but the request was denied.

In addition, Corpus has asked for — and was granted — county-funded legal representation, although the county did not disclose the amount paid. This news organization is also attempting to obtain those figures.

The public removal hearings will begin daily at 9 a.m. in Courtroom 2M of the Hall of Justice in Redwood City. Anyone can attend, but seating will be limited, and no cameras, video or audio recording will be permitted. There will also be no livestream or remote access available.

The hearings will be “informal,” according to procedures adopted in April by the county. This means the hearings will not follow standard rules of evidence and other normal court procedures.

Each side will have up to five full days to present its case. Under the procedures, the county bears the burden of proof and may reserve time for rebuttal after the sheriff’s team has presented its case.

Once the testimony concludes, the hearing officer will have 45 days to issue a written advisory opinion to the Board of Supervisors on whether “cause” exists for removal, using a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. The board then has 30 days to review the opinion before voting in a public meeting.

Removal would require a four-fifths vote and would take effect immediately, according to procedures; a final vote on Corpus’ ouster by the Board of Supervisors might not appear on the agenda until November or December.

Under the county charter, the Board of Supervisors would then have 30 days to either appoint a new sheriff or call a special election. In either case, the selected individual will serve the remainder of the term. Should the board fail to act within 30 days, the county elections office is required to immediately schedule a special election to fill the vacancy.

Corpus’ legal team, which includes the firm Murphy Pearson Bradley & Feeney and Washington, D.C.-based civil rights attorney and former U.S. Labor Secretary Tom Perez, has sought unsuccessfully to stop the proceedings in local and federal courts, arguing the process is fundamentally flawed.

Wilson Leung, one of Corpus’ lawyers, told this news organization on Thursday that the process lacks the safeguards of the state’s civil grand jury removal method, where a sitting judge presides, rules of evidence apply, and a unanimous jury verdict applying the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold is required to find her guilty.

In contrast, he said, the county’s process is overseen by a privately contracted retired judge, does not follow standard evidence rules, and relies on a lower standard of proof. The hearing officer’s opinion is advisory, and the board can disregard it entirely if it can muster four votes for removal.

“This is the first time the allegations will be tested, and the sheriff will be able to present her own evidence,” Leung said. “Up until now, much of what’s been presented — like the Cordell report — was one-sided and untested.”

County attorneys from Keker Van Nest & Peters declined to comment on the case.

The proceedings have sparked a range of opinions from residents and local leaders.

According to Jim Lawrence, former Foster City mayor and a member of the citizen watchdog group Fixin’ San Mateo, the county has “bent over backwards” to ensure fairness, noting that Corpus has been given multiple opportunities to appeal.

“Unfortunately, her repeated challenges have drawn it out. This not only undermines public confidence, but also stalls urgently needed leadership changes,” Lawrence told this news organization on Thursday.

In contrast, Joaquin Jimenez, former Half Moon Bay mayor and a longtime supporter of Corpus, believes the process is unfair and undermines democracy.

Jimenez, who was the city’s first Mexican-American mayor, said that during Corpus’ tenure, more bilingual deputies were hired and engagement with the county’s mostly migrant farmworker communities improved. He said a recall election would have been a fairer and less costly way to address the accusations against Corpus.

“It would have been more democratic and way cheaper,” Jimenez said in a phone interview on Friday. “Why were they even asking for the power to remove her from the position? That’s not democratic at all.”