The courtroom was already full when proceedings resumed Monday morning, with Curren Price supporters lining the walls and late arrivals standing shoulder to shoulder as Deputy District Attorney Casey Higgins pressed a defense witness over text messages, disclosure practices, and what internal records did — and did not — reveal about intent.
Under sustained questioning, the witness acknowledged that documents related to financial disclosures were edited and that informal communication methods were sometimes used inside City Hall. But he repeatedly resisted the prosecution’s efforts to connect those records to any knowing misconduct by Price, emphasizing gaps in memory, context, and what he described as his mindset at the time.
Price has pleaded not guilty to felony counts alleging he steered city decisions to benefit his wife’s former employer, Del Richardson & Associates, and failed to properly disclose financial conflicts tied to development projects. Prosecutors contend the case hinges on whether Price knowingly participated in votes connected to clients of the firm; the defense argues that staff-led screening processes were designed to prevent such conflicts.
Taking the stand, Del Smith, a legislative deputy in Price’s office, described internal practices related to financial disclosures, conflict flagging, and staff communication during both pre-COVID and pandemic-era City Council operations.
Asked whether a list of projects and developers used for disclosure review had ever been altered, Smith testified that it had been edited but not reduced.
“Edited, yes. Shortened, no,” Smith said, describing the changes as routine updates to project names or developer identifiers rather than the removal of information.
Higgins focused heavily on how staff communicated about potential conflicts, questioning why some issues were flagged via text message rather than email. Smith testified that awareness of the California Public Records Act influenced how staff communicated, explaining that written communications possessed by the city could later be subject to public disclosure.
At several points, Higgins confronted Smith with contemporaneous text messages, asking whether they reflected Smith’s understanding of potential conflicts at the time. Smith acknowledged that “based on the text” a particular interpretation could be drawn, but emphasized that the messages did not reflect his mindset when they were sent.
“If you’re going off the date of the letter and the date of the text, sure,” Smith said. “But I was never made aware of that letter, and I don’t recall my mindset at that time.”
Smith also testified that verbal recusals did occur, though documentation practices varied, particularly during COVID-era virtual meetings. He acknowledged that some agenda items reflected “yes” votes even after potential conflicts had been discussed, but said there was no formal written process for recording recusals.
Smith testified that he routinely reviewed council files, motions, and project addresses, cross-checking information against a rolling Excel spreadsheet provided by Del Richardson & Associates (DRA). When a developer name was not immediately apparent, he said he would conduct additional research, including Google searches or checks through the California Secretary of State’s business database.
But Smith acknowledged limits to that review. He testified that he did not have access to underlying contracts, payment records, or checks, and relied heavily on whether a project appeared on the DRA list at the time of review.
Higgins confronted Smith with multiple council votes in which Price supported projects connected to developers tied to DRA, including instances where potential conflicts had been flagged earlier. Smith testified that he did not recall some of those votes and said he may have “missed” them.
Smith also acknowledged that when Price authored a motion, he generally did not independently investigate potential conflicts, explaining that there was a longstanding assumption within the office that Price would not introduce legislation in which he had a financial conflict.
As questioning stretched into the afternoon with Smith remaining on the stand, Higgins pressed him on his real-time awareness of council votes and the reliability of the records he relied on. Higgins introduced an internal email dated Nov. 4, 2021, titled “council items of interest,” which Smith sent ahead of a City Council meeting the following day.
Smith acknowledged sending the email but testified that it reflected a preliminary review rather than a definitive determination that a conflict existed.
“I was cross-referencing the agenda,” Smith said, explaining that he relied on internal tracking systems and deferred follow-up to other staff members monitoring where projects were in the legislative process.
Higgins also confronted Smith with text messages showing him flagging potential conflicts minutes before council meetings. Smith testified that he sometimes created informal summaries of “items of interest” based on agenda materials provided by the City Clerk, which he used to brief senior staff verbally. Those summaries were not retained.
Under cross-examination, Price’s defense attorney sought to reframe Smith’s role as procedural rather than discretionary, emphasizing the volume of City Council business and the layered nature of the conflict-review process.
Smith testified that flagging a potential conflict did not mean he had concluded one existed. He said notes and text messages identifying “items of interest” — sometimes marked with question marks — were intended to prompt further review, not direct voting decisions. Smith explained that prior council votes listed as “absent” often required additional investigation because city records did not distinguish between recusals, scheduling absences, or grouped consent votes.
“I understood people were relying on me to do this job and do it well,” Smith testified, adding that both Price and Chief of Staff Marisa Alcaraz depended on his review.
Defense counsel focused on a Sept. 2, 2020, City Council meeting involving the “Depot at Hyde Park” project. Smith confirmed that text messages sent during the meeting reflected his effort to flag a potential conflict in real time.
At 10:22 a.m., Smith texted Alcaraz to “make sure he’s off,” referring to agenda item four. He later followed up: “never mind. you got it.”
Defense counsel introduced official voting records showing Price listed as “absent” on that item. Smith testified that, when viewed alongside the text messages, the records reflected a recusal.
“That’s my understanding,” Smith said.
Smith further testified that City Council records do not explicitly label recusals and instead reflect only three outcomes — yes, no, or absent. He said he was never notified by the City Clerk or City Attorney when a recusal occurred and did not maintain a separate record tracking them.
On cross-examination, Smith testified that Councilmember Curren Price never instructed him to ignore conflicts, alter reviews, or vote improperly, and that he was never directed by Price or anyone else to do anything he believed was wrong.
Asked whether Price was involved in the conflict-checking process itself, Smith replied, “Not that I’m aware of.”