A Santa Clara County judge Monday ordered\u00a0District Attorney Jeff Rosen\u2019s fundraising records\u00a0to be turned over to defense attorneys, citing the documents as necessary to determine whether\u00a0the prosecutor has a conflict of interest that should bar him and his entire office from retrying a felony vandalism case against five pro-Palestinian activists.<\/p>\n
The orders were part of a recusal motion seeking to bar Rosen and his entire office from retrying five defendants \u2014 known as the \u201cStanford 5.\u201d The defendants are facing felony charges after a June 2024 demonstration in which protesters<\/a> briefly occupied Stanford University\u2019s executive offices, calling on the school to divest from companies linked to Israel over the war in Gaza. University officials accused demonstrators of causing at least $300,000 in damage.<\/p>\n The recusal motion centers on allegations that Rosen used the high-profile prosecution to raise campaign funds. Deputy Public Defender Avi Singh, who represents defendant German Gonzalez, argued last month that Rosen was \u201cmonetizing criminal prosecution\u201d \u2014 highlighting the case on his campaign website alongside donation buttons and on a page titled \u201cDA Rosen Fighting Anti-Semitism.\u201d<\/p>\n The defense is seeking records from Rosen\u2019s campaign. Some records are being subpoenaed from third parties after Rosen said he does not have them.<\/p>\n Superior Court Judge Kelley Paul said she found several defense requests legally valid and that \u201cdocuments could lead to admissible evidence and have bearing on statutory and due process rights.\u201d<\/p>\n Paul declined to release personal identifying information about\u00a0Rosen\u2019s supporters \u2014 including membership lists, home addresses and employer names for the hundreds who confirmed attendance at the fundraiser. She also withheld financial receipts from fundraising platform Anedot Inc. pending a private review to determine their relevance.<\/p>\n Without signaling where she leaned, Paul said the disclosure was about determining whether Rosen had blurred the line between his roles as district attorney and political candidate.<\/p>\n Both sides are expected to return to court next week to argue the recusal motion. Paul could then subsequently issue a ruling.<\/p>\n Among the documents ordered released were materials regarding the creation of a Dec. 5 email blast, which allegedly referenced the Stanford prosecution, including Rosen\u2019s drafts and notes on its content and structure \u2014 as well as speech drafts and talking points for a Dec. 14 fundraiser.<\/p>\n The judge also ordered the disclosure of digital media from that event, provided that all attendee faces are blurred, except for Rosen\u2019s.<\/p>\n Paul ordered the materials released by Friday under a gag order initially \u2014 to prevent the case from \u201cbeing litigated in the media,\u201d she said. But the records will likely become public when attorneys argue the recusal motion, with privacy protections for any third parties whose data appears in the subpoenaed materials.<\/p>\n Lawyers for Rosen\u2019s campaign argued the subpoenas should be quashed, calling them a \u201cfishing expedition\u201d that lacked justification and violated the District Attorney\u2019s supporters\u2019 \u201cconstitutional rights of freedom of association and privacy.\u201d<\/p>\n Beyond privacy concerns, attorneys Imran Dar and Sarah Goldwasser argued that releasing the documents posed a direct threat, citing the nature of the charges against the defendants. They characterized Gonzalez as someone who \u201cengages in criminal activities\u201d and led a \u201chostile occupation\u201d that caused significant damage \u2014 and suggested the defense might use donor information to harass \u201can ethnoreligious minority.\u201d<\/p>\n Gonzalez has not been convicted of any crime.<\/p>\n Co-defense attorney Margaret Trask called the characterization offensive and destructive.<\/p>\n \u201cRequests are done in good faith \u2014 we just want to make sure our clients are respected here,\u201d she said. Paul agreed, saying the court would not entertain arguments that assume bad faith on the part of defendants or opposing counsel.<\/p>\n In an interview with the Bay Area News Group\u2019s editorial board Monday, Rosen said the case is one of multiple issues he campaigned on, arguing that publicizing prosecutions is standard practice for elected DAs.<\/p>\n \u201cEverything that every elected official does, they inform people. This is what we\u2019re doing. And if you like it, support us,\u201d Rosen said. \u201cI\u2019m against domestic violence. And I\u2019ve said that and I highlight our domestic violence prosecutions. Does that mean that I should be recused from domestic violence?\u201d<\/p>\n Rosen grew visibly heated when asked about the \u201cmonetizing\u201d accusation, arguing he has faced no similar challenges in other prosecutions \u2014 attributing the difference to his identity.<\/p>\n \u201cBut in this case, because it\u2019s about antisemitism, and it\u2019s because I\u2019m a Jew, it\u2019s the oldest f***ing antisemitic trope. And that\u2019s exactly what the defense attorney is doing in this case,\u201d he said. Rosen added that the case has resulted in increased threats and a heightened security detail.<\/p>\n The prosecution is among the most serious criminal cases brought nationwide<\/a> tied to the wave of pro-Palestinian campus protests that swept the country in 2024. Similar cases at Columbia University, the University of Michigan and UCLA were either dismissed or never pursued criminally.<\/p>\n The five who went to trial are Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor Black and Amy Zhai. The remaining defendants either accepted plea deals or entered diversion programs that could allow charges to be dismissed if they complete certain requirements.<\/p>\n