Ethics commission sets expedited briefing and witness‑disclosure schedule in Mirkarimi official‑misconduct matter

The San Francisco Ethics Commission on a special meeting ordered expedited legal briefing and a staged exchange of witness lists in the official‑misconduct matter involving Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. The commission directed the mayor’s counsel to file opening legal briefs within one week and the sheriff’s counsel to respond shortly thereafter, with witness disclosures to follow in May.

The chair said the commission would first take written submissions on legal questions identified in the staff memorandum and by the parties so that the body could narrow issues and establish fair procedures before deciding whether to hear live testimony. Peter Keith, deputy city attorney, told commissioners his office favors a live hearing with direct and cross‑examination “to weigh that person’s credibility based on their demeanor” and to make a full record for the Board of Supervisors. Sheriff counsel, identified in the transcript as Mr. Kopp, argued the commission should expedite the process, insisted on notice of the mayor’s evidence, and said he would seek the highest legal protections for his client, including the ability to move to dismiss.

The commission and the parties agreed a schedule that the chair summarized: the mayor’s legal brief on enumerated issues due within a week (April 30); the sheriff’s legal response roughly a week after that; the mayor to provide a fact‑witness list and brief summaries by May 7 and any proposed expert witness identifications by that date; the sheriff to provide his fact‑witness list by May 10 (parties requested May 10 rather than May 9); responses to expert disclosures by May 17; and a further status meeting on May 29. Parties also agreed to briefing format (double‑spaced, 12‑point font) and page limits (opening and response briefs up to 35 pages, 10‑page reply). Counsel agreed to service by email with 5 p.m. deadlines.

The city attorney’s office told the commission it is pursuing subpoenas, seeking telephone records and a videotape of witness Ileana Lopez’s statement, and intends motions currently set in court (for example, a motion to compel testimony). Sheriff counsel said he objects to the city attorney conducting an independent investigation outside commission‑directed procedures and asked the commission to resolve whether Sheriff Mirkarimi is legally required to cooperate with the mayor’s investigation.

The commission concluded by adopting the timetable and passing a motion empowering the chair to make ministerial adjustments to the schedule and to manage the process in consultation with counsel. The motion was moved and seconded on the record and then passed.

Next steps: parties will file the agreed briefs and exchange witness lists on the schedule the commission set; the commission will revisit whether to take live testimony after reviewing the legal briefs and disclosures.