Former Santa Clara County Sheriff's Captain James Jensen was supposed to be sentenced this week, nearly three months after a jury convicted him on bribery and conspiracy charges for his role in a pay-to-play scheme where those willing and able to donate cash or goods to the department or a group supporting then-Sheriff Laurie Smith's re-election campaign would receive rarely-granted concealed carry permits.
Instead of learning if he'd be heading to prison, however, Jensen convinced the judge overseeing the case that he should be allowed to argue for a new trial. At the very least, Jensen's sentencing will now be delayed for a few months, but he could end up avoiding prison altogether.
Jensen isn't necessarily disputing that he was involved in the pay-to-play scheme. Instead, his attorneys argue that he's been disproportionately punished for his role in the scheme, while the primary beneficiary wasn't even criminally charged.
Instead of sentencing him Monday, Judge Nahal Iravani-Sani gave James Jensen a reprieve so his attorneys can file a motion for a new trial on the premise that Jensen’s legal defense was hamstrung by not being allowed to implicate other figures in the corruption probe.
That included a co-defendant who got his charges dismissed, one who was acquitted, and one who pleaded to a lesser misdemeanor crime, along with three conspirators who avoided indictment by agreeing early on to become prosecution witnesses.
Jensen’s attorneys also wanted to argue to jurors that the presumed beneficiary of his actions, former sheriff Laurie Smith, was never criminally charged, which they contend undercuts the basis of Jensen’s conviction.
“The jury in this case never got a full picture,” defense attorney Harry Stern wrote in a legal memo submitted to the judge prior to the sentencing hearing. “This all improperly prevented James Jensen from his right to fully and fairly confront the evidence.”
In court Monday, Deputy District Attorney John Chase, the lead prosecutor in the case, objected to the delay in sentencing as well as the new trial request. Iravani-Sani set a series of filing deadlines for the next two months that will lead up to a Nov. 25 court hearing in which she plans to rule on the defense motion.
It does frost my cookies that then-Sheriff Laurie Smith was only indicted on civil charges, given that, according to testimony, all concealed carry permits were personally approved by her. Then-D.A. Jeff Rosen hinted that criminal charges might be coming after Smith was convicted in civil court of corruption and misconduct two years ago, but that hasn't come to pass even after Jensen's conviction. Former undersheriff Rick Sung and Jensen are also facing trial in a related case where they're accused of helping an Apple executive obtain carry permits for several security officials in exchange for a donation of iPads to the department, but again, Smith has managed to avoid any criminal charges in that case as well.
It's true that Jensen faces the most serious consequences for anyone involved in the pay-to-play scandal (at least to date). But that alone shouldn't be enough for him to obtain a new trial. Prosecutors have already proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that while the cash and goods that were "donated" in exchange for concealed carry permits may have ultimately been to Sheriff Smith's benefit, it was employees like Jensen who facilitated the exchange.
The transaction that fueled the indictment involved the executive security firm AS Solution, which boasted of protecting high-profile tech icons including Mark Zuckerberg. The security firm agreed to donate $90,000 to support Smith and her 2018 bid for a sixth term in exchange for falsified CCW permits for the company’s security agents.
Half of that amount made its way to an independent expenditure committee co-managed by attorney Christopher Schumb, who was also indicted but was ultimately dismissed from the case after an appellate court ruled his prosecution was a conflict of interest owing to his past fundraising work for District Attorney Jeff Rosen.
The remainder of the agreed-upon donation never materialized after Martin Nielsen, a manager for the security firm, was intercepted by DA investigators who secured his cooperation. That included surreptitiously recording Jensen instructing Nielsen where to send the outstanding $45,000 and mentioning the term “quid pro quo” when describing the sizeable contribution.
Grand jury testimony portrayed Jensen as a key facilitator in carrying out Smith’s wishes for who got a CCW permit and who didn’t, drawing on the wide discretion state law once gave to sheriffs and police chiefs in doling out the licenses. Incidentally, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling, which outlawed “good cause” tests for firearms permits, has notably diminished that latitude.
Nielsen got probation after pleading guilty to three misdemeanor counts of conspiracy, while Jensen was convicted on felony corruption and conspiracy charges. Did prosecutors ever offer him a deal similar to the one that Nielsen received, perhaps in exchange for information about Smith's involvement in the scandal? Even if that never happened, Nielsen and Jensen had very different roles in the pay-to-play scheme, which also helps to explain the disparity in their punishment.
I'm honestly surprised that Iravani-Sani threw Jensen a lifeline on Monday, and it raises the disturbing possibility that none of the central actors in the scandal will ever be held accountable in a court of law.
Jensen has already been convicted by a jury of his peers, and the fact that others involved in this conspiracy have skated with plea deals or civil prosecution doesn't change what he did. As far as I'm concerned, every member of the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department who took part in a scheme selling access to the right to bear arms while denying ordinary citizens their right to do the same, should be thrown behind bars for as long as the law allows... including the disgraced former sheriff who's managed to avoid serious consequences for her reprehensible actions.
