THREE KEY WITNESSES in the removal hearing for San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus testified Wednesday afternoon, describing their observations of the relationship between Corpus and her chief of staff, Victor Aenlle, which supervisors say was inappropriate.
“Every time I saw Christina, I saw Victor,” said Daniel Guiney, a former Sheriff’s Office employee who supported Corpus’ campaign for sheriff but now calls her a liar, while on the stand. “They didn’t seem to ever be apart.”
The hearings, which began Monday and are estimated to last ten days, were spurred by Corpus’ move to appeal the county Board of Supervisors’ unanimous decision to oust her from office in June.
In November 2024, the county released a scathing, 400-page investigation by retired judge LaDoris Cordell alleging that Corpus had an inappropriate relationship with Aenlle and fostered a culture of intimidation and retaliation in the Sheriff’s Office.
The report sparked numerous calls for her resignation, but she remained defiant, arguing that she is a victim of a “good ol’ boys club” culture within the Sheriff’s Office.
Instead of holding a recall election, the Board of Supervisors took the unprecedented step of putting a charter amendment, Measure A, on the ballot that would grant the Board the authority to remove Corpus. In March’s special election, voters overwhelmingly approved the measure.
The hearings are one of the final stages of the county’s lengthy process to remove Corpus, giving her the public opportunity to address the allegations against her.
Much of the witness testimony on day three focused on evaluating whether Corpus and Aenlle had an intimate relationship, which has raised concerns over a potential conflict of interest.
The first 30 minutes were spent with Corpus finishing her testimony on the stand. She discussed the sexual harassment, death threats and bullying she said she has faced during her time in the Sheriff’s Office.
She recounted a moment before she became the sheriff, in which a deputy pulled her ponytail “aggressively,” and that it was brushed under the rug by the assistant sheriff at the time, she said.
“He pulled from behind my ponytail and yanked my head back twice. When I turned to look, he whispered in my ear and he said, ‘You’re so f—ing irresistible,’“ Corpus said on the stand. “I could feel the heat and the spit in my ear, and then he proceeded to go into the locker room. I was shocked.”
During the lunch recess, Corpus and her attorneys gave interviews about the proceedings so far and the Measure A process.
Corpus reiterated that she is simply a victim of an ingrained, conformist culture in the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office that is resistant to the changes she has tried to introduce.
“To keep the status quo, they will fight you tooth and nail,” she said in an interview.
Corpus’ attorney Tom Perez believes that because the Judge Cordell report itself cannot be held up in a court of law, voters “were duped” into voting for Measure A. He pointed fingers at County Executive Michael Callagy, who has filed a $10.5 million claim against Corpus and Aenlle for defamation.
“I don’t blame voters for voting for it because the misinformation wasn’t from a source they didn’t know, it was from the county itself,” Perez said in an interview. “Shame on them.”
But some of the witnesses interviewed by Judge Cordell for her report also testified on Wednesday, explaining to retired Judge James Emerson what they observed between Corpus and Aenlle.
Former allies turn against Corpus
Civilian employee of the Sheriff’s Office and ex-friend of Corpus, Valerie Barnes, provided insight into the alleged affair between Corpus and Aenlle, who were both married at the time. Barnes worked in the Millbrae Police Bureau as an executive assistant for police services when Corpus was the captain there.
“They were romantically involved,” Barnes said. “I saw back rubs and foot rubs, holding hands, and I saw them peck on the lips.”
Barnes also recalled a few instances where Corpus allegedly used homophobic and racial slurs.
During her campaign for sheriff, Barnes said she remembered Corpus calling Carlos Bolanos, the incumbent in the race, a “coconut.”
“She said it means when you’re brown on the outside but white on the inside,” Barnes testified.
Corpus also used the term “fuzz bumper,” a derogatory term for a lesbian, to refer to Millbrae city councilmember Gina Papan. It appeared in some text messages Corpus sent to Barnes that were presented in court.
“Fuzz bumpers sister’s coming to get her done and my hairdresser place,” Corpus allegedly wrote in a text to Barnes.
Corpus argued in her testimony that she learned of the homophobic term from Barnes and was unaware of its meaning. However, in text exchanges presented in court, Barnes used the nickname “combover” to refer to Papan and not “fuzz bumper.”
Mariah Cooke, one of Corpus’ attorneys, cross-examined Barnes and questioned her credibility.
Cooke found it suspicious how the accusations of an inappropriate relationship between Corpus and Aenlle all came from one interviewee in the Judge Cordell report, which was Barnes.
“You’re the only one who was alleging these allegations of kissing, rubbing, neck, feet, shoulders,” Cooke said. “You’re the only one to testify about that close, personal contact.”
However the next witness to take the stand was Guiney, who also provided insight into what he believed was an affair between Aenlle and Corpus.
Guiney volunteered for Corpus in her campaign. But just one week after Corpus took office, he left his more than two-decades long career in San Mateo County law enforcement.
Guiney said that during Corpus’ campaign, he attended several meetings on Zoom but was surprised to see Aenlle and her sitting close together during the calls. In one meeting, Guiney claimed to see Aenlle giving Corpus a massage.
“Victor was standing behind her while she was sitting in her desk, and he had his hands on her shoulder,” Guiney said.
Another witness who testified on the behavior of Aenlle and Corpus was Jennifer Valdez, who previously worked as an executive secretary in the Sheriff’s Office.
Valdez said she “thought that there was something going on romantically,” especially after she claimed to hear Aenlle say “Te amo” during a phone call with Corpus.
Outside of the courthouse after finishing her testimony, Corpus doubled down on her decision to add Aenlle to her executive team.
She argued that employees simply did not like him because he supported Corpus’ ideas for modern policing.
“He believed in my vision for 21st century policing and they didn’t like that,” she said in an interview. “I was not going to allow for someone to tell me who I could have on my team, and I stand my decision.”
Aenlle’s salary key to Measure A
For the county, proving that Corpus had a romantic relationship with Aenlle is an important component in being able to remove her from office since it helps support the claim that she misused the county’s coffers.
With the passage of Measure A, the county was granted temporary power to remove a sheriff for “cause,” which includes misappropriation of public funds or property, according to Section 412.5 of the county charter.
Once Corpus was sworn in as sheriff in January 2023, Aenlle signed a contract to work for Corpus where he would get paid up to $192,275.
She made multiple requests to raise his salary, one of which was granted when she was able to create a new position for him. In March, Aenlle was promoted to fill the new role of “Executive Director of Administration,” or chief of staff.
His new salary was listed at $246,979.
If Aenlle and Corpus were indeed having an affair, creating a new position for him to make nearly $250,000 could suggest that Corpus mishandled spending county money.
In a February statement endorsing Measure A, the San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff’s Association accused Corpus of having a conflict of interest in the hiring of Aenlle.
“Christina Corpus abused her power by hiring someone she was in a relationship with for a $246,000 taxpayer-funded position, for which he was unqualified,” a union spokesperson said.
Proceedings will continue on Thursday. Once it concludes, Emerson will have up to 45 days to submit a written opinion to the Board of Supervisors which must contain a recommendation on whether there are grounds for Corpus’ removal.