Santa Clara County DA Barred From Retrying Pro-Palestinian Stanford Protesters

In an unusual move amid a contentious election cycle, a South Bay judge has barred Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen and his office from retrying a vandalism case against a group of pro-Palestinian Stanford student protesters due to a conflict of interest.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Kelley Paul issued the rare order Thursday afternoon recusing Rosen and his entire office from the case.

In her decision, she sided with defense attorneys who cited a series of concerns about Rosen’s actions, including his promotion of the case on a campaign fundraising website highlighting his efforts in “fighting antisemitism.” Rosen is running for reelection this year.

“The conflict is so grave as to render it unlikely that the defendants will receive fair treatment during all portions of the criminal proceeding,” Paul said from the bench in a small San José courtroom.

Some of the protesters in court and a small group of their supporters let out cheers and sighs of relief after exiting the courtroom, and started cheering and clapping.

The group of five protesters was part of an original group of 12 charged with felony vandalism and conspiracy after their June 4, 2024, occupation of the president’s office on Stanford University’s campus, where they barricaded themselves before being arrested.

The protesters said on social media at the time they entered the university offices that they wanted Stanford leaders to “address their role in enabling and profiting from the ongoing genocide in Gaza.”

The action came amid a series of larger campus demonstrations aimed at pressuring the school to divest from companies that support Israel’s military bombardment in Gaza.

Their case has gained notoriety in part because it was one of the most severe prosecutions connected with protest-related activity over the Gaza war across college campuses in 2024. While thousands were arrested, few of the cases saw felony charges filed, and many of the lesser charges were eventually dropped.

Five of the original 12 went to trial, and in February, a deadlocked jury pushed the case to a mistrial. Defense attorneys, including Deputy Public Defender Avi Singh, filed the request to recuse Rosen shortly after.

German Gonzalez, one of the defendants in the trial, said immediately after the decision on Thursday that he was very happy about the outcome. “I think given the ways that we’ve seen the district attorney try to really trade this prosecution for a campaign fund, it’s not a question of monetization, it’s a question, to a certain degree, of corruption,” he said.

“I’m very grateful for Judge Paul’s ruling,” he said. “I tried to keep a calm and composed expression, but I was definitely very nervous because the experience of the prosecution from this district attorney’s office has been quite difficult.”

Rosen’s office, in an emailed statement, said Thursday, “While we disagree with the judge’s ruling, we respect it.”

When recusal motions are considered in local courts, the state’s Attorney General’s office represents the DA. Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office argued in filings that the defense’s “claims are meritless, and recusal is not required.”

Singh, in his motion, raised several issues about Rosen’s conduct during the lead up to the charges of the protesters and their prosecution, and the trial. He said Rosen had labeled protesters as antisemitic, because of his inclusion of the case on his campaign page about “fighting antisemitism.” 

That webpage was sent in an email blast to over 600 people in L.A. County advertising a fundraiser for Rosen. The page also included a video recording of a speech Rosen gave to a nonprofit organization that supports Jewish college students. 

Paul cited the video in court, saying Rosen said “fighting for Jews and for Israel is fighting for America, that antisemitism is anti-Americanism, that antisemitism is un-American.” She also said Rosen criticized the group Students for Justice in Palestine. 

Paul also referred to a 2020 San Luis Obispo County case where the District Attorney, Dan Dow, had fundraised around his prosecution of Black Lives Matters protesters marching in the streets after the police murder of George Floyd, which was cited by Singh in his motion. 

A trial court there disqualified Dow, and an appeals court upheld the decision, because of his “well-publicized association with critics of the Black Lives Matter movement.” The case was known as the Lastra ruling, based on one of the defendants’ names. 

“The court agrees with the defense that the videos and articles posted on the fighting antisemitism campaign page must be considered together as a whole,” Paul said. “In an age of digital media, this page and the email blast…parallels” the conflict in the Lastra case, she said. 

“This is a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor, trespass and a felony vandalism case, plain and simple. It is not a hate crime case and the characterization of the prosecution of this case as a fight against antisemitism, as part and parcel of a fundraising campaign, runs afoul of Lastra,” Paul said.

Sharon Loughner, the Deputy Attorney General representing Bonta’s office, argued previously in court filings that the protesters’ arguments “fail to present direct evidence of DA Rosen labeling them ‘antisemitic’,” and that Rosen’s public statements “consist of ideologically neutral comments with no financial solicitations.” 

Loughner said prosecutors are allowed under the First Amendment to express their political views, and “may continue to fundraise while in office provided those efforts are not tied to biased speech.” 

Paul, on Thursday, said Rosen, as a DA, a citizen and a candidate, has rights to express his opinions and take stances against issues like antisemitism, but she admonished that “caution and care” need to be used. 

During court arguments over the request for recusal from Singh last month, Paul ordered Rosen’s campaign to turn over fundraising records connected with an event in December in Los Angeles, and allowed Singh to subpoena other documents from outside parties. 

In an interview last month with the Bay Area News Group’s editorial board about his campaign for re-election, Rosen “grew visibly heated” when asked about the monetization allegations, according to The Mercury News. 

Rosen said DAs often campaign on their prosecutions, and said he hasn’t faced challenges about other cases, but said because he is Jewish, this case is being treated differently. 

“But in this case, because it’s about antisemitism, and it’s because I’m a Jew, it’s the oldest f***ing antisemitic trope. And that’s exactly what the defense attorney is doing in this case,” he said, The Mercury News reported. Paul cited the statements in the article in court.

The last time Rosen’s office was recused from a case was a bribery case in 2021, in connection with the prosecution of a key defendant in the quid-pro-quo scandal around concealed carry gun permits issued by the sheriff’s office. 

An appeals court ruled in 2021 Rosen’s office was conflicted because a close friendship and fundraising relationship with Christopher Schumb made it unlikely he would receive a fair trial. The case was taken over by the Attorney General’s office and the charges were later dropped.

Paul’s decision orders the Attorney General to take over the case. The Attorney General’s office could still appeal Thursday’s decision.

The new trial for the protesters is currently scheduled for May 11, but could be delayed due to potential appeals.

Gonzalez said he hopes the Attorney General’s office drops the charges. 

“I think that this case should have never been charged to begin with,” he said. “I’m very grateful that it’s in the hands of the AG now and I hope they make the correct decision.”