Jury to begin deliberating corruption case against Santa Clara County sheriff

Closing arguments cap the civil trial that revolves around Laurie Smith's issuing of concealed-carry weapons permits and her alleged resistance to a civilian overseer's jail-injury probe.

SAN JOSE — The final chapter of Sheriff Laurie Smith’s nearly 50-year tenure in the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office — half of that as top cop — is now in the hands of a jury that will decide whether her oft-criticized issuing of concealed-carry weapons permits and accusations of evading transparency constitute corruption warranting her ouster.

Smith is facing six civil counts of corruption and willful misconduct based on accusations filed by the county Civil Grand Jury last year. A guilty verdict on just one of the counts would compel her expulsion from office two months before her announced retirement in January, at the end of her sixth term.

The corruption trial, which has the structure of a criminal trial but is being held in civil court, held its closing arguments Thursday, led off by Gabriel Markoff, a San Francisco Assistant District Attorney who is prosecuting the case because of conflicts declared by Santa Clara County. San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Nancy Fineman is presiding because of a similar recusal by the local judiciary.

Markoff hammered home long-standing criticisms about the way Smith and her office issued CCW permits, arguing that she unlawfully prioritized VIPs and political supporters while leaving ordinary county residents “in the cold.” That characterization is the basis of the first two corruption counts that allege she abused her discretion as the sole signatory of the coveted gun licenses and that she flouted statutory 90-day response deadlines for most applicants.

“Laurie Smith illegally used CCW’s as a perk as part of a political-influence scheme,” Markoff said in court Thursday. “In short, she was currying favor with VIP’s. Ordinary folks … didn’t even get a response. That’s the system that Sheriff Smith created.”

During the trial, Markoff relied on much of the evidence that led to separate criminal indictments against her former undersheriff, a trusted captain and several donors and supporters. Smith evaded criminal prosecution — she invoked her Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to testify to a criminal grand jury panel in 2020.

The trial included testimony from more than 40 witnesses, many of whom testified to the criminal grand juries. Markoff described how political donors, influential Silicon Valley tech pioneers and other prominent figures got “concierge” treatment from the sheriff’s office with their CCW applications.

This was contrasted to CCW applicants who had stated confirmed serious safety threats. They heard nothing back. Markoff recounted testimony from Smith’s staff about how non-VIP applications rarely got a second look.

He also cited the experience of Rev. Jethroe Moore, former president of the San Jose-Silicon Valley NAACP, who while in the sheriff’s good graces got a permit. When he later backed her opponent in 2018, his renewal application was met with silence.

“What mattered was that he was no longer on her side,” Markoff said. “And once he was no longer on her side, he was out in the cold.”

Three of the corruption counts revolved around the sheriff accepting a San Jose Sharks luxury suite from a CCW recipient. Prosecutors said that broke the law because it surpassed gift limits for elected officials and she did not report it to the state as required, opting instead to purchase three nosebleed tickets at the same Feb. 14, 2019, game to have on hand as her proof of attendance.

The last count accuses her of stalling an information-sharing agreement with the civilian auditor for the sheriff’s office. The auditor had been investigating why an internal probe into the 2018 jail-injury case of Andrew Hogan — which led to a $10 million county settlement — was abruptly terminated.

Smith’s attorney, Allen Ruby, was sharply critical of the accusations against the sheriff and said the evidence against her was thin.

Regarding the CCW allegations, Ruby said the prosecution’s contention of favoritism relied on a vague definition of what constituted a VIP.

“It’s unanswerable,” Ruby said to the jury. “It is defined in terms that nobody can know the answer to.”

Ruby also took issue with evidence presented that found nine out of 10 political donors who applied for CCW permits in 2017 and 2018 got them, compared to an 11% issue rate for non-donors. He said that was too small of a sample to glean any conclusion and noted that their donations amounted to between 2 and 3 percent of her campaign fundraising.

“This implication that this was somehow a money machine that required distorting the whole CCW application and awarding process, this is a very small part of the campaign apparatus,” Ruby said.

Responding to the count addressing application response, Ruby pointed to a backlog and a crush of applications and emphasized jury instructions stating that oversight, negligence or a mistake are not enough to prove corruption.

“If you think the sheriff made a mistake or misjudgment — how would a person in public life not — the law says it’s not unlawful or willful misconduct in office,” Ruby said.

On the Sharks suite allegation, Ruby argued that the company of the donor, Harpreet Chadha, was the actual source of the luxury box, rather than the donor himself — which disqualified it from being a reportable gift and thus not subject to gift-reporting laws.

“We know it was not a reportable transaction because there was not a reportable source,” Ruby said.

In his rebuttal, Markoff scoffed at that interpretation, saying that Chadha, as CEO of ExpertQuote, had the power to donate the suite. He also said Ruby’s statement doesn’t explain why Smith bought the cheaper tickets — or the testimony from an employee alleging Smith expressly said she wanted to buy the tickets to avoid having to report the suite.

“Why would the sheriff have bought her own ticket if she didn’t think this was a reportable gift she was trying to get around?” Markoff said.

Both attorneys sparred over whether Smith resisted information requests from the civilian monitor in the Hogan probe. Markoff cited testimony from Smith’s subordinates saying she delayed meetings with the two deputy unions to stall having to hand over sensitive documents — that later resulted in the issuing of a scathing report in the middle of the current trial. Ruby said Smith was simply acting according to a conventional negotiation and was prioritizing the safeguarding of officer personnel records protected by state law.

Ultimately, Ruby said the accusations unfairly scandalized the sheriff with lackluster proof.

“The nature of these proceedings and allegations, and the virulence of this, we believe are way out of proportion to what the evidence has shown,” he said.

Markoff called Ruby’s pleadings to the jury “smoke and mirrors” and asked them to use their common sense.

“After all the corruption, all the rot, all the sleaze … that’s the person we’re supposed to feel sorry for?” Markoff said to the jury, referring to Smith. “We have done our job, it’s time for you to do yours.”