Attorneys for one of the five pro-Palestinian activists accused of felony vandalism during a 2024 Stanford University protest are asking a judge to remove the Santa Clara County District Attorney\u2019s Office from retrying the case, arguing that District Attorney Jeff Rosen has a conflict of interest that undermines the defendants\u2019 right to a fair trial.<\/p>\n
Deputy Public Defender Avi Singh, who represents defendant German Gonzalez, filed the motion on Feb. 25, citing Rosen\u2019s fundraising campaign highlighting the case\u00a0and the prosecution\u2019s conduct during the first trial.<\/p>\n
The request follows a mistrial declared earlier this month<\/a> after jurors split 8-4 in favor of guilt on the conspiracy charge and 9-3 on the felony vandalism count, short of the unanimous verdict required for conviction.<\/p>\n According to Singh\u2019s motion, less than 30 minutes after the mistrial, Rosen publicly announced his intent to retry the case. Singh cited that swift declaration as evidence of bias, quoting Rosen as saying the case involved \u201ca group of people who destroyed someone else\u2019s property and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage.\u201d<\/p>\n That motion is set to be heard by a Santa Clara County Judge on March 18, with the retrial set for March 23.<\/p>\n When a motion seeks to recuse a district attorney, the attorney general\u2019s office represents the prosecution because the district attorney\u2019s office is a party to the case. While the office has occasionally stepped aside after determining it had a conflict of interest, court-ordered removals are rare.<\/p>\n At the center of the recusal motion is Rosen\u2019s alleged use of the high-profile case<\/a> in campaign fundraising. Singh argues that Rosen highlighted the prosecution of the \u201cStanford 5\u201d on his campaign website \u201cdirectly alongside \u2018Donate to Jeff\u2019 buttons,\u201d and on a page titled \u201cDA Rosen Fighting Anti-Semitism,\u201d among other accusations.<\/p>\n Rosen\u2019s office declined to comment on the motion, deferring to the attorney general, who did not respond\u00a0to requests for comment.<\/p>\n The case stems from a June 2024 demonstration in which protesters, who briefly occupied the university\u2019s executive offices, called on Stanford to divest from companies linked to Israel over the war in Gaza. University officials say demonstrators caused at least $300,000 in damage to the buildings.<\/p>\n Of the 13 people arrested<\/a>, 11 were indicted by a grand jury on felony charges<\/a> and five went to trial: Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor Black and Amy Zhai, dubbed the \u201cStanford 5.\u201d If convicted, they face up to three years in prison and restitution. The remaining defendants either entered diversion programs or accepted plea deals.<\/p>\n The prosecution is among the most serious criminal cases brought nationwide in connection with the wave of pro-Palestinian campus protests that swept the country in 2024. Similar cases stemming from demonstrations at Columbia University, the University of Michigan and UCLA were either dismissed or not pursued criminally.<\/p>\n \u201cDistrict Attorney Jeff Rosen\u2019s actions in this case, together with the actions of DA Rosen\u2019s trial deputy, demonstrate a conflict that requires recusal of DA Rosen and the entire District Attorney\u2019s Office,\u201d Singh wrote.<\/p>\n To demonstrate the district attorney\u2019s alleged bias, the motion highlighted the examination of witness John Richardson, a Loyola Marymount University student from the Bay Area who was among the 13 arrested in 2024 but later entered a youth diversion program after pleading no contest.<\/p>\n During the trial, Richardson was questioned about his views on the Holocaust, the Russia-Ukraine war and the Oct. 7 attacks. The defense argues these lines of inquiry were unrelated to the felony charges and intended to discredit the protesters\u2019 political beliefs. The motion also cited the prosecution\u2019s attempt to bar the use of the word \u201cgenocide\u201d as an example of bias.<\/p>\n Singh argues in his motion the cumulative effect demonstrates how the prosecution prioritized political considerations over impartial enforcement of the law. Throughout the trial, however, prosecutors maintained it was the defense that placed undue emphasis on political views<\/a> to distract from the alleged criminal conduct.<\/p>\n Singh declined to comment further on his motion.<\/p>\n Stanford has become a flashpoint<\/a> for pro-Palestinian expression and accusations of antisemitism on campus. Separate subcommittees in 2024 found a basis for alleged antisemitism and anti-Israel bias, as well as documented cases of Islamophobia and discrimination against Muslim, Arab and Palestinian students.<\/p>\n Outside of the campus, the case has underscored how deeply divided views over the war in Gaza have complicated court proceedings, with attorneys clashing over whether political opinions should influence jury selection, defense arguments or witness testimony.<\/p>\n If the motion is granted, it would mark one of the rare instances in Santa Clara County in which a district attorney\u2019s office is removed from a case. The attorney general would then have the discretion to assume the prosecution or dismiss the charges.<\/p>\n A similar situation arose earlier this decade in a 2020 pay-to-play scandal involving concealed-carry weapons permits under former Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith<\/a>. One of four people indicted argued the district attorney\u2019s office was in conflict of interest because of the defendant\u2019s past friendship with Rosen and the fundraising work performed for the district attorney.<\/p>\n