Don’t delay trial of Sheriff Smith’s corruption case
Santa Clara County voters deserve a speedy resolution of the legal case against Sheriff Laurie Smith that could end with her removal from office.
A civil grand jury filed an accusation in Superior Court on Tuesday requiring a trial to determine whether to unseat Smith for seven corruption-related acts. Six counts allege the sheriff engaged in political favoritism and traded favors by leveraging her authority to issue concealed-weapons permits. The seventh accuses her of failing to cooperate with the county auditor investigating a jail inmate’s injury that led to a $10 million county settlement.
A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge will determine when Smith’s trial will be held. It must be treated as a priority case and not be allowed to drag on for months — or over a year, as was recently seen in a Contra Costa County case that involved the same seldom-used state law.
That law allows for a civil grand jury to call for a jury to decide whether to remove a public official from office for willful or corrupt misconduct in office. It’s separate from any criminal charges or civil complaints that might stem from the same incidents.
Smith is entitled to a fair and speedy trial. So is the public. Especially because Smith is widely expected to run in 2022 for a seventh term. It’s not just voters who deserve to know the outcome of the trial well in advance of the June primary election. Qualified candidates considering whether to run also need to know whether the incumbent will be unseated.
Smith should have resigned last year. Her September 2020 decision to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination when appearing before the grand jury in a payto-play concealed-weapons investigation is unacceptable. As the county’s top law enforcement official, her refusal to answer questions about whether she knew about corruption in her own department or was involved in it makes her unfit to hold office.
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors clearly understands how troubled her tenure has been. In August, the board cast a unanimous vote of no confidence in Smith because of her poor handling of South Bay jails and the corruption scandals plaguing her office.
Deeply troubling issues have been swirling around the sheriff for far too long. The county’s judiciary must not let this drag out further. We’ve seen what can happen when judges allow unnecessary delays in this type of case.
In June 2019, the Contra Costa County civil grand jury filed an accusation that county Assessor Gus Kramer had created a hostile work environment for employees within his office and under his supervision. But the trial to determine whether Kramer should be removed from office wasn’t decided until 17 months later, due to repeated delays by Contra Costa judges.
In the meantime, Kramer ran for a seat on the Board of Supervisors. The case was still pending when voters cast their ballots in the November 2020 election. Kramer lost the supervisor race, and his trial ended three days after the election in a hung jury. The district attorney opted not to retry the case.
The only other Santa Clara County case in the last 40 years involving a civil grand jury accusation against a public official occurred in 2002 when a jury convicted Mountain View City Councilman Mario Ambra of “knowing willful misconduct” in violating the city charter. He resigned the day before a judge would have removed him from office. Ambra was found guilty of bullying city employees over land-use issues.
As for Smith, the 2022 primary campaigns will be underway in short order. The judicial system must protect Smith’s and the public’s compelling interests in a speedy resolution. Everyone deserves to know soon whether the sheriff will be removed from office.