SAN JOSE A court Thursday rejected a defense bid to disqualify Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosens office from prosecuting a corruption case involving concealed-gun permits issued by the sheriffs office.

Superior Court Judge Eric Geffon handed down the ruling after a hearing in a San Jose courtroom, and soon after denied a defense motion to seal now-public transcripts of the grand jury proceedings in the case.

Joe Wall, attorney for South Bay litigator and political fundraiser Christopher Schumb, argued in a motion filed last month that his clients friendship past financial support for Rosen and plans to call on Rosen as a defense witness posed an insurmountable conflict of interest.

Rosen had repeatedly said the state Attorney Generals office deemed there was no conflict. Ultimately, Geffon sided with deputy attorney general Sharon Loughner in court to oppose recusal in deciding that emails illustrating the friendship between Rosen and Schumb were not sufficient grounds to disqualify Rosens office.

I dont believe the evidence before the court supports a finding of a conflict of interest, Geffon said.

In court filings, Rosen downplayed his relationship with Schumb. He also stated that he returned $1,500 in campaign contributions from him in August 2019 after his office served a search warrant on Schumb and made him a formal subject of a conspiracy and bribery investigation, that culminated in him being indicted along with three other defendants: sheriffs Capt. James Jensen, attorney Harpaul Nahal and gun-maker Michael Nichols.

Walls disqualification motion was accompanied by a trove of emails between Schumb and Rosen, and sometimes Chief Assistant District Attorney Jay Boyarsky, showing a chummy relationship and references to Schumbs fundraising for Rosens re-election. Rosen did acknowledge 125 personal emails involving Schumb between 2015 and 2019, but noted in his filing that they had one email in 2019, seemingly to indicate their contact had tapered off by the time Schumb came under investigation.

Thank you and Jill again for opening up your home and hosting a lovely event for my re-election, Rosen writes to Schumb in a June 29, 2013 email with the subject line Just Getting Started. I appreciate it very much. Youre a good and generous person. In a May 22, 2016 email, Rosen wrote to Schumb: Thank you very much for all your advice, counsel support and encouragement. Im very glad that youre in my corner.

As recently as February 2018 two months before Schumb is alleged to have taken part in the alleged crimes Rosen was writing to Schumb seeking advice for repairing an heirloom Swiss watch.

For Mr. Rosen to deny there was a friendship defies logic. Its absurd, Wall said in court Thursday. His role in this case taints our criminal-justice system All were asking for is a fair playing field.

Loughners central argument was that even substantiating a friendship between the two did not meet the standard for a conflict warranting disqualification from a case, asserting that the application of recusal law has mostly involved scenarios where a DA previously represented a criminal defendant or had a connection or affiliation with a crime victim.

Were still waiting to hear what the conflict is in this case, Loughner said in court. There has to be an actual likelihood of unfair treatment All were hearing is theres a conflict because theres a conflict. They simply say they have a relationship.

Wall sparred briefly with Loughner and Deputy District Attorney John Chase, head of the offices public integrity unit that led the corruption probe, over an internal DA memo Rosen shared with Schumb involving his 2013 conflict with the county over time-off benefits critics said shielded his top prosecutors from county-wide pay cuts. Wall held that up as proof of Schumbs status as a personal adviser to Rosen and of attorney-client privilege that further proved a conflict. Rosen refuted in a filing that he ever sought Schumb as legal counsel.

Harry Stern, Jensens attorney, bolstered the disqualification effort with a motion alleging in part that Rosens office leaked grand jury transcripts and other confidential information about the indictment to the Metro Silicon Valley newspaper, which the DA has credited with the initial tip that spurred the gun-permit probe. In his motion, Stern alleged that the DA did so to shape public opinion and taint a potential jury pool.

Sterns backing for this claim was circumstantial, premised on the idea that only a small number of people would be privy to minute details of the grand jury proceedings such as Sheriff Laurie Smiths demeanor when she invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and a motive to leak them. He asked that the transcripts, which became public Aug. 31, be re-sealed. Rosen, Boyarsky and the two prosecutors who presented before the grand jury all submitted near-identical filings attesting that they did not share any grand jury information outside the public announcement of the indictment.

In denying the re-sealing motion, Geffon said he took the issue of a possible leak seriously, but stopped short of granting Sterns request that he make a judicial order asking the AGs office to start an investigation.

The state of evidence here is neutral, and speculative, Geffon said, adding that he rejected the idea that only the DA had a motive to leak the information. The leak was more about embarrassing the sheriff than prejudicing the defendants.

After Geffons denial, Stern signaled his intent to take the matter to the Sixth District Court of Appeal.

I think this is such a weighty matter that it necessitates that kind of an objective review, Stern said. I have to follow that to the end.

In his motion, Wall further argued thatpast acrimony between Rosen and Smiths over access to recordings of jail inmate calls added to the necessity of changing prosecutors. In a filing responding to that contention, Chase wrote that the jail-call issue had been resolved by the time a search warrant was sought for Schumb.

Schumb, Nahal, Nichols and Jensen are scheduled to return to court next week to continue their arraignment. All four were indicted on felony conspiracy and bribery charges that allege they plotted with Christian West, former CEO of the executive security firm AS Solution, and AS manager Martin Nielsen to get the firm up to a dozen concealed-carry permits for their agents in exchange for $90,000 in donations to committees supporting Sheriff Laurie Smith and her 2018 re-election campaign.

When the four indicted defendants first appeared in court together Aug. 31, West pleaded guilty to two conspiracy counts, on the agreement they are downgraded to misdemeanors for his cooperation with prosecutors. Nielsen and another AS manager testified before a criminal grand jury that they both were in line for similar consideration.

After Geffons decision Thursday, Rosens office released a statement that it will continue to fairly and fully prosecute this case.

Here is the original post:

Judge rejects bid to oust Santa Clara County DA from concealed-gun permit corruption case - East Bay Times