Concealed gun permit testimony opens trial on sheriff corruption
A civil corruption trial for outgoing Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith got fully underway Friday with initial witness testimony before a jury tasked with deciding whether Smith should be removed from office just weeks before her term ends.
Smith faces six misconduct accusations filed by a civil grand jury last year: Five involve allegations of favoritism and lawbreaking in how she gave out concealedcarry weapons permits. The sixth claim alleges that she stonewalled a civilian watchdog's probe of a controversial jail inmate injury.
If she is found guilty of even one accusation, Smith would be forced out of the office she has held for six terms dating back to her 1998 election as the state's first female sheriff. In March, she chose not to run for a seventh term, citing the dark political cloud from the corruption accusations as well as heavy scrutiny from the Board of Supervisors over the past year.
Sgt. Richard Glennon was the key witness on the stand Friday; he was one of Smith's public information officers between 2016 and 2019 and was the public point person for the specialized gun-permit applications. For the first time in public, he testified that CCW approvals were heavily steered by Smith and a handful of close advisers rather than by a consistent methodology.
Glennon testified that permits were far more likely to be approved for applicants with “celebrity status” or public stature, including professional athletes — records have shown San Jose Sharks players as permit recipients — as well as judges, local politicians, influential business owners and corporate figures. Less prominent applications, Glennon said, “were placed into a file cabinet” and rarely got a second look.
“We would get several hundred that were not acted upon,” Glennon said.
Also testifying was Linda Wallace, a former executive assistant who worked in Smith's office between 2010 and 2016. She outlined the general method used to process CCW permits and applications. She said she was never instructed to send denial or rejection letters, which could support a civil grand jury accusation that Smith's office largely failed to respond to applicants within a statutory 90-day deadline.
In a statement aligning with Glennon's recollection, Wallace testified that after accounting for a “small percentage” of approved applications, “the remainder were in the drawer until at some point they move forward.”
A subsequent conversation with Smith, Glennon testified, revealed that the sheriff believed the “law was on her side” in interpreting that if an application was kept in “pending” status, “no notice would be provided.” Glennon, who has a law degree from Santa Clara University, previously testified to the civil grand jury that he was “surprised” at Smith's stance and implied it was wrong.
Friday, Glennon voiced his distaste for having to tell people waiting for an official response that their applications were still “pending.”
“It felt disingenuous. It felt wrong. I was essentially lying to them,” he said. “I knew there was no plan.”
Defense attorney Allen Ruby reaffirmed his defense of the sheriff centering on the contention there is no evidence that Smith specifically approved an invalid gun permit or denied a legitimate one. In his cross-examination of Glennon, Ruby methodically pored over the CCW permits issued during Glennon's time as PIO, calling the jury's attention to each and every recipient who did not have any obvious fame.
“Was he a celebrity?” Ruby repeatedly asked Glennon for low-profile recipients, often drawing an answer of “No.”
Ruby later asked Glennon if he thought Smith had engaged in corrupt conduct with judges and court commissioners who received permits over the years, prompting Glennon to say “No.” But Glennon responded with more certainty when answering Ruby's question asking if Smith had misused her discretion in issuing the permits.
“I don't think for a particular applicant,” Glennon said. “But for the process overall.”
Glennon's and Wallace's statements are the first public testimony regarding the CCW allegations. Those claims — as well as those of witnesses still to come — are the subject of two criminal indictments that ensnared Smith's undersheriff and a captain who was a close adviser, as well as several supporters. Smith has not been criminally charged and refused to testify before a criminal grand jury, invoking the Fifth Amendment.
The state Attorney General's Office is conducting its own investigation into many of the issues underpinning the criminal and civil grand jury cases.
The current civil corruption proceedings, presided over by San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Nancy Fineman, are also the first time the gun-permit controversy is going before a regular jury; neither of the two criminal indictments, which were filed in 2020, are close to trial, and two of the initial criminal defendants have successfully gotten their charges dismissed.
The testimony previously offered to the criminal and civil grand jury panels was made in secret, but transcripts later became public, as is legally required.
Procedurally, a trial based on a civil grand jury accusation operates similarly to a criminal trial, but the outcome differs: A unanimous guilty verdict on any count would result in Smith's removal from office, and she would be barred from holding an elected position again. The trial is expected to last at least into November, so any guilty finding would amount to Smith's departure a few weeks prior to her term ending in January.
Fineman is presiding over the trial because the Santa Clara County Superior Court recused itself. San Francisco prosecutors are trying the case because of conflicts involving the Santa Clara County Counsel's Office, which served as legal adviser to the sheriff's office, as well as the county district attorney's office, which is prosecuting the criminal indictments.