Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Kelley Paul on Thursday ordered the recusal of District Attorney Jeff Rosen and his entire office from retrying a Stanford felony vandalism case, citing a conflict of interest.<\/p>\n
Rosen filed felony vandalism and conspiracy charges in April 2025 against 12 Stanford University students and allies, after they allegedly broke into the school president\u2019s office in June 2024 to protest the ongoing killings in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas war. The case, which critics contended exhibited notably serious punishments for a university protest, ended in a mistrial<\/a>\u00a0on Feb. 13.<\/p>\n While some of the defendants took plea or alternative deals, protesters German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Amy Jing Zhai and Hunter Taylor-Black faced charges of felony vandalism and conspiracy to trespass.<\/p>\n After the initial trial ended in a hung jury, Rosen immediately said he would retry the case. Attorneys for the defendants then argued Rosen should be excused after he showcased the lawsuit on a webpage that he dedicated to fighting antisemitism and used to garner donations for his 2026 reelection campaign<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cDA Rosen is not entitled to continue to pursue a case where he falsely describes the prosecution of the defendants as part of his fight against antisemitism while attempting to raise campaign dollars off that false description,\u201d Defense Attorney Avi Singh wrote in court documents.<\/p>\n A link to Rosen\u2019s webpage was sent to more than 600 of his Los Angeles County supporters as part of an email blast, which invited recipients to a campaign party in December 2025, just weeks before the trial began, according to Paul. The link, which mentioned multiple times his charges against the Stanford students, was cited as proof of his commitment toward \u201cAmerica, the State of Israel, the Jewish People, and Judaism.\u201d<\/p>\n It is unclear which email recipients donated to his campaign because of the webpage, but court records show he raised $10,000 between Dec. 5 and Dec. 31, 2025, Paul said.<\/p>\n While Paul reaffirmed Rosen\u2019s right to free speech and noted passion for fighting antisemitism, she said \u201ccaution and care\u201d must be taken when using active litigation for fundraising purposes.<\/p>\n The Stanford lawsuit is \u201cnot a hate-crime case,\u201d and should not be characterized as a fight against antisemitism, Paul said.<\/p>\n Attorney General Rob Bonta, who helped represent the District Attorney\u2019s Office, argued that defense attorneys did not prove Rosen\u2019s guilt.<\/p>\n \u201cDA Rosen neither vilified nor defamed defendants and\/or their movement while fundraising and simultaneously prosecuting defendants,\u201d Bonta wrote in court documents.<\/p>\n The court also agreed that Rosen\u2019s behavior could have affected Deputy District Attorney Rob Baker\u2019s treatment of the defendants as Baker was leading the prosecution\u2019s case.<\/p>\n At times, he criticized the students\u2019 motivations and at one point called the group \u201cun-American.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe court finds a conflict of interest exists,\u201d Paul said.<\/p>\n With the DA\u2019s office forced to recuse, the state Office of the Attorney General may now take over the trial against the students.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile we disagree with the judge\u2019s ruling, we respect it,\u201d the DA\u2019s office said in a statement after the ruling.<\/p>\n When he announced the charges against the Stanford students in April 2025, Rosen maintained he was not charging them because of their message, but because of the damage they caused to the Stanford University office. He also said at the time he hoped the defendants would not get prison sentences, but would be required to take responsibility and make restitution to the university.<\/p>\n \u201cPouring invective on social media is not against the law,\u201d Rosen said. \u201cPouring fake blood all over someone else\u2019s workplace is.\u201d<\/p>\n During the initial trial, the defense and prosecution sparred over whether the students\u2019 actions constituted a peaceful protest or criminal acts of vandalism. According to the prosecution, one or more protesters broke a window to enter the president\u2019s office, then let the remaining people in through a door. Once inside, the protesters barricaded doors with wires, stacked furniture to block entrances and hung up banners in support of Palestine and Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh, who was killed by Israeli forces. They also allegedly covered security cameras with tissue and foil paper.<\/p>\n Once the building was barricaded, some protesters chanted while others sat quietly. At some point, some protesters spilled fake blood made from corn syrup on office floors and furniture. Yet the defense contended the group always intended to peacefully exit the building. They did not, for example, bring food, electrolytes or any other supplies that suggested they intended an extended occupation of the building.<\/p>\n Protester group chats also showed participants aimed to minimize damage to the offices and attempted to stop people outside of the building from spray painting. Even so, police estimated the group caused $300,000 in damage. Carpet stains, a bent door bar, broken doorframes and an assessment of an antique grandfather clock with drops of blood on it contributed to those costs.<\/p>\n Supporters of the Stanford Five focused their arguments on the group\u2019s message rather than the damage. The group said it took action after students and faculty organized more than 20 peaceful protests since October 2023, demanding the university engage in conversations with students and divest from companies that supply military support to Israel, according to court documents. Protesters said their efforts were met with minimal engagement.<\/p>\n While five protesters opted to head to trial, remaining suspects Eliana Lindsay Fuchs, Isabella Terrazas and Zoe Georgia Edelman took alternative deals<\/a>\u00a0before the trial began. John Richardson, who\u00a0testified<\/a>\u00a0for the prosecution, entered a youth deferment program. Cameron Michael Pennington, Kaiden Wang and Gretchen Rose Giumarin pled no contest and had their charges reduced to misdemeanors, according to court documents.<\/p>\n The court extended the DA\u2019s recusal decision to protesters who took diversion or alternative paths, which means their cases will likely be also overseen by the state.<\/p>\n