Facing multiple efforts to remove her, San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus formally denied corruption and misconduct allegations brought by a civil grand jury during a brief court appearance Tuesday. She also faces one count of conflict of interest and three counts of retaliation.
Overseen by Judge Stephanie Garratt, Tuesday’s court hearing lasted less than five minutes. Corpus waived her right to a formal reading of charges and to a speedy trial. She appeared alongside her attorney, Thomas Mazzucco, and exited through a back door without speaking to the media.
Corpus’ next hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m. July 21 before Judge Mark McCannon at San Mateo County Superior Court. It is expected to be procedural as a trial date has not yet been set. If convicted, she will be removed from office.
Related Articles
Sheriff Corpus removal hearing scheduled for August; public access still in question
Report: Sheriff Corpus concealed staffer’s records, ignored misconduct tied to supporters
Newly released docs detail union leader arrest, alleged staff affair as San Mateo County seeks to remove sheriff
What are the civil grand jury accusations against San Mateo County’s sheriff?
Civil grand jury accuses San Mateo County sheriff of corruption, misconduct
Accusations from the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury come as Corpus also faces a separate removal process initiated by the Board of Supervisors, for similar accusations of alleged corruption and misconduct, under new authority voters approved in March, which allows the board to remove a sitting sheriff through 2028, the end of Corpus’ term.
If removed through both proceedings, she would be the first sheriff in the Bay Area ousted directly by a county board, and likely the first in California to face two simultaneous removal efforts.
The civil grand jury’s accusation includes a conflict-of-interest claim centered on Corpus’ relationship with Victor Aenlle, her former chief of staff, an allegation both Corpus and Aenlle deny.
The accusation alleges Corpus violated the county charter by hiring, supervising, and repeatedly seeking raises for Aenlle, with whom she had a close personal relationship that was not disclosed to county officials.
The three retaliation counts involve current and former members of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office.
Corpus is accused of firing Assistant Sheriff Ryan Monaghan for cooperating with an outside investigation into her conduct, led by retired judge LaDoris Cordell, who published a report last November that intensified calls for Corpus’ resignation.
Another count alleges Corpus transferred Captain Brian Philip from the Professional Standards Bureau to the jail after he refused to serve Deputy Sheriffs’ Association President Carlos Tapia with a notice of an internal affairs investigation and declined to arrest Tapia in November 2024 for alleged timecard fraud. The district attorney later declined to file charges.
The civil grand jury also claims Corpus retaliated against Tapia himself, alleging his arrest was tied to his union involvement, including contentious labor negotiations, a sworn declaration in support of a union complaint, and a no-confidence vote against Aenlle last year.
Separately, Corpus is facing criticism over placing Sgt. Joe Fava on administrative leave last week, who contributed to another investigation into her administration by the law firm Keker, Van Nest & Peters.
Known as the “Keker report,” the review was commissioned by the county and initially kept private at Corpus’ request. The court later posted the documents publicly. The report said Fava raised concerns about resistance within the department to investigating certain employees, some of whom were identified as loyal to the sheriff.
Corpus has denied that Fava’s leave was retaliatory.
“The claim that Sergeant Joe Fava was ‘placed on administrative leave without reason’ is patently false,” she said in a Monday statement, referencing phrasing used by a local media outlet. “Fava was not placed on leave for any improper or retaliatory reason. His temporary administrative leave is entirely unrelated to any comments or cooperation he may have provided in the Keker report.”
Corpus also criticized media coverage of the events surrounding her removal.
“Some recent media coverage has reflected a disturbing pattern: the selective use of information, false narratives, and personal attacks to erode public confidence and obstruct progress,” she said.
Two employee groups — the Deputy Sheriff’s Association and the Organization of Staff Sergeants — condemned the decision to place Fava on leave.
“We are deeply concerned that this action may be connected to the sergeant’s recent role in uncovering misconduct involving Sheriff Christina Corpus and members of her administration,” the unions said in a joint statement.
They also questioned the timing of Fava’s sanctions.
“The timing of this administrative leave, relative to the public release of the Keker report in which he was a named witness, raises serious concerns,” the unions said. “Without transparency, this decision appears to reflect a broader pattern of retaliation against those who speak up.”
Corpus is also set to face a formal removal hearing before the Board of Supervisors from Aug. 18 to 29.
Her attorney, Mazzucco, has previously described the accusations as “politically motivated complaints by the upper echelons and union leadership” of the Sheriff’s Office.
“These complaints regarding assignments, command staff selections and union issues are not uncommon for large law enforcement agencies,” he said.
Civil grand jury removal trials are rare in California.
Fewer than 100 public officials have been removed through the process in the past 150 years, according to a previous interview with William Larsen, a retired prosecutor from San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.
In 2022, Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith resigned nearly a year after a civil grand jury issued an accusation against her. Her resignation came as the jury in her removal trial was deliberating.