{"id":305200,"date":"2026-05-08T01:16:12","date_gmt":"2026-05-08T01:16:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/305200\/"},"modified":"2026-05-08T01:16:12","modified_gmt":"2026-05-08T01:16:12","slug":"judge-disqualifies-santa-clara-county-da-from-stanford-vandalism-retrial-the-mercury-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/305200\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge disqualifies Santa Clara County DA from Stanford vandalism retrial \u2013 The Mercury News"},"content":{"rendered":"

SAN JOSE \u2014 A Santa Clara County judge removed District Attorney Jeff Rosen\u2019s office Thursday from the retrial of five pro-Palestinian activists<\/a> accused of vandalizing Stanford University\u2019s executive offices, ruling that Rosen\u2019s campaign fundraising and public comments had created too grave a conflict for his office to continue prosecuting the politically charged case.<\/p>\n

The ruling came after defense lawyers sought to disqualify Rosen and his staff<\/a> from retrying felony vandalism and conspiracy charges<\/a>, after the first trial ended in February with a jury deadlocked 9-3 and 8-4 in favor of conviction<\/a> for the respective counts.<\/p>\n

As a result of the ruling, the state Attorney General\u2019s Office, which represented the DA\u2019s office for the recusal motion, will for the time being become the prosecuting agency for any retrial. But Paul said her recusal order would be stayed while the parties sort out downstream issues including whether the AG\u2019s office will appeal her decision.<\/p>\n

The ruling represents an extraordinary rebuke of the county\u2019s elected prosecutor in one of the Bay Area\u2019s most closely watched criminal cases stemming from campus protests over Gaza.<\/p>\n

In a recusal petition<\/a> reviewed by Superior Court Judge Kelley Paul, attorneys for German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor Black and Amy Zhai, co-signed an argument asserting that Rosen was conflicted by his \u201cmonetizing\u201d of the case by highlighting it in his fundraising efforts for a fifth term in office. Paul sided with them Thursday.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe conflict is so grave as to render it unlikely that the defendants will receive fair treatment,\u201d Paul said. The judge said Rosen\u2019s fundraising and public comments improperly tied the Stanford prosecution to combating antisemitism, even though the defendants were not charged with hate crimes.<\/p>\n

Rosen\u2019s office had a brief response to Paul\u2019s decision: \u201cWhile we disagree with the judge\u2019s ruling, we respect it.\u201d<\/p>\n

The first Stanford trial was closely watched as it represented one of the most high-profile criminal prosecutions<\/a> to result from a wave of civil disobedience and unrest at college campuses across the country over the Gaza conflict. Rosen has repeatedly asserted that he is pursuing a second trial strictly to secure accountability for the estimated hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage reported after the protest.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo walk away from the case at this point \u2026 would be me giving in to a small number of loud voices,\u201d he said in a March interview. \u201cI\u2019m not looking to send somebody to prison \u2026 what you should do is accept responsibility for what you did, apologize for it, and make restitution.\u201d<\/p>\n

Deputy Public Defender Avi Singh, who spearheaded the recusal petition, could be heard telling defendants\u2019 supporters after the hearing that Paul\u2019s decision demonstrated a \u201ctremendous amount of care put into the due process rights of each of the individuals who are on trial from the Stanford protest case.\u201d<\/p>\n

He later told reporters that while he does not know if the AG\u2019s office will appeal, he respects the legal process, and added that the \u201ccase law suggests a strong foundation and real rigor in the analysis.\u201d<\/p>\n

German Gonzalez, one of the defendants facing retrial, who was seen raising his arms in triumph after the February mistrial declaration, was more reserved Thursday, saying he was battling nerves that gave way to relief after the ruling.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m grateful that it\u2019s in the hands of the Attorney General now, and I hope that the Attorney General makes some correct decisions regarding this case and makes a correct charging decision to not bring charges,\u201d Gonzalez said.<\/p>\n

The defense petition argued that Rosen\u2019s office demonstrated bias and politicized the trial in instances like when it interrogated the political beliefs of witnesses, and through his announcement immediately after the mistrial declaration that they would be retrying the case.<\/p>\n

The Stanford recusal motion cited a 2020 San Luis Obispo County court granting of a recusal \u2014 later upheld in appellate court<\/a> \u2014 involving felony vandalism charges against Black Lives Matter protesters. The defense argued the DA there demonstrated bias in media appearances disparaging the BLM movement and by fundraising on the notoriety of the vandalism charges and positioning himself as \u201cleading the fight\u201d against similar causes. A judge ruled that he \u201csought political and professional benefit and campaign contributions in conjunction with the prosecution\u201d of the protesters.<\/p>\n

That ruling, known as the Lastra decision after one of the protesters, was cited repeatedly by Paul in the context of fundraising emails and public comments Rosen made to supporters and prospective donors, which she concluded linked his office\u2019s prosecution of the Stanford defendants with combating antisemitism. She said that \u201cruns afoul of Lastra\u201d in part because the defendants were not charged with a hate crime.<\/p>\n

\u201cCaution and care need to be taken when utilizing an active prosecution in campaign fundraising efforts,\u201d Paul said. \u201cThe DA still has the right to freedom of speech and association, but exercise of those rights cannot deprive those he prosecutes to the right to a fundamentally fair trial.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

In an April interview with the Bay Area News Group editorial board, Rosen expressed pointed resentment toward the recusal effort, calling it selective and saying it targeted his identity since recusals have not been pursued when he promotes his office\u2019s work in areas like domestic violence.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn this case, because it\u2019s about antisemitism, and it\u2019s because I\u2019m a Jew, it\u2019s the oldest f\u2014\u2014 antisemitic trope. And that\u2019s exactly what the defense attorney is doing in this case,\u201d Rosen said to the editorial board.<\/p>\n

Judge Paul quoted that exchange, which was reported in a Bay Area News Group story last month about the recusal motion, in contending that \u201cthemes of antisemitism\u201d continue to inappropriately \u201cpermeate\u201d the case.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is not a disinterested prosecution,\u201d Paul said Thursday.<\/p>\n

The reported Stanford office takeover and barricading occurred June 5, 2024, and involved a dozen people, consisting mostly of Stanford students and alumni, entering Stanford\u2019s Building 10, which houses the president\u2019s office, by breaking a window and using ladders, furniture and other items to block doorways. It occurred as campus protests called\u00a0on the school to divest its holdings from companies linked to Israel over the war in Gaza.<\/p>\n

They disseminated their political demands on social media, and were arrested about 90 minutes after entering the building. Authorities contend that the activists ransacked the interior of the building while carrying tools including an electric grinder, hammers, crowbars and chisels, and alleged that they inflicted between $360,000 and $1 million in property damage.<\/p>\n

Defense attorneys countered with evidence that the protesters had planned to keep in contact with police and intended to leave the building voluntarily, arguing the demonstration was meant to be peaceful. They also showed video of law enforcement cursing at protesters.<\/p>\n

Seven of those arrested settled their cases prior to trial<\/a>; three pleaded to misdemeanors, three agreed to pretrial diversion arrangements, and one opted for a youth diversion resolution. The remaining five proceeded to trial, with prosecutors asserting that they were strictly seeking accountability for the damage, and the defense calling the case an attack on political expression.\n<\/p>\n

The last high-profile forced recusal \u2014 a rarity \u2014 for this DA\u2019s office occurred five years ago, involving one of four men indicted in an alleged pay-to-play scheme trading political donations and favors for concealed-carry weapons permits<\/a> from the Santa Clara County Sheriff\u2019s Office. The defendant claimed Rosen and his office were conflicted because the defendant had fundraised for and was friends with Rosen.<\/p>\n

A trial court denied the recusal motion, but an appellate court reversed that decision<\/a>. The AG\u2019s office, which took over, later opted to drop his charges<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"SAN JOSE \u2014 A Santa Clara County judge removed District Attorney Jeff Rosen\u2019s office Thursday from the retrial…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":305201,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[7359,4004,340,14229,3783,2058,88,90,89,202,1428,1816,22919],"class_list":["post-305200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-san-jose","tag-district-attorney","tag-gaza","tag-israel","tag-jeff-rosen","tag-palestine","tag-protest","tag-san-jose","tag-san-jose-headlines","tag-san-jose-news","tag-stanford","tag-trial","tag-university","tag-vandalism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/305200","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=305200"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/305200\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/305201"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=305200"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=305200"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=305200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}