|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The 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.
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’s office in June 2024 to protest the ongoing killings in Gaza. The case, which critics contended exhibited notably serious punishments for a university protest, ended in a mistrial on Feb. 13.
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.
After the initial trial ended in a hung jury, Rosen immediately said he will 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 that he used to garner donations for his 2026 district attorney campaign.
“DA 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,” Defense Attorney Avi Singh wrote in court documents.
A link to Rosen’s webpage was sent to over 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 “America, the State of Israel, the Jewish People, and Judaism.”
It is unclear which email recipients donated to his campaign because of the webpage, but court records showed that he raised $10,000 between Dec. 5 and Dec. 31, 2025, Paul said.
While Paul reaffirmed Rosen’s right to free speech and noted passion for fighting antisemitism, she said “caution and care” must be taken when using active litigation for fundraising purposes.
The Stanford lawsuit is “not a hate-crime case,” and should not be characterized as a fight against antisemitism, Paul said.
Attorney General Rob Bonta, who helped represent the District Attorney’s Office, argued that defense attorneys did not prove Rosen’s guilt.
“DA Rosen neither vilified nor defamed defendants and/or their movement while fundraising and simultaneously prosecuting defendants,” Bonta wrote in court documents.
The court also agreed that Rosen’s behavior could have affected Deputy District Attorney Rob Baker’s treatment of the defendants as Baker was leading the prosecution’s case.
At times, he criticized the students’ motivations and at one point called the group “un-American.”
“The court finds a conflict of interest exists,” Paul said.
With the DA’s office forced to recuse, state Office of Attorney General may now take over the trial against the students.
“While we disagree with the judge’s ruling, we respect it,” the DA’s office said in a statement after the ruling.
When he announced the charges against the Stanford students in April 2025, Rosen maintained that he was not charging them because of their message but because of the damage that they caused to the Stanford University office. He also said at that time that he hopes the defendants will not get prison sentences but would be required to take responsibility and make restitution to the university.
The District Attorney’s office also maintained that student “attitudes” toward the offense did not support a reduction of charges, according to court documents.
“Pouring invective on social media is not against the law,” Rosen said. “Pouring fake blood all over someone else’s workplace is.”
During the initial trial, the defense and the prosecution sparred over whether the students’ 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’s office, then let the remaining people 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.
Once the building was barricaded, some protestors chanted while others sat quietly. At some point, some protesters spilled fake blood made from corn syrup on office floors and furniture. Yet defense contended that the group always intended to peacefully exit the building. They did not, for example, bring food, electrolytes or any other supplies that suggested that they intend an extended occupation of the building.
Protestor group chats also showed that participants aimed to minimize damage to the offices and attempted to stop people outside of the building from spray painting. Even so, police estimated that 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.
Supporters of the Stanford Five focused their arguments on the group’s message rather than the damage. The group said it took action after students and faculty organized over 20 peaceful protests since October 2023, demanding that the university engage in conversations with students and divest from companies that supply military support to Israel, according to court documents. Protestors said their efforts were met with minimal engagement.
While five protestors opted to head to trial, remaining suspects Eliana Lindsay Fuchs, Isabella Terrazas and Zoe Georgia Edelman took alternative deals before the trial began. John Richardson, who testified for 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.
The court extended the DA’s recusal decision to protestors who took diversion or alternative paths, which means that their cases will likely be also overseen by the state Office of Attorney General.
Thank you to the Mountain View Voice and Lisa Moreno for the excellent reporting on District Attorney Jeff Rosen’s office and the prosecution of student peace protesters.
Without dedicated local journalists, the public would never know about the many accusations of bullying, retaliation against subordinates within the DA’s office, and the weaponization of the Santa Clara District Attorney’s office to push a particular foreign policy agenda. Without the Mountain View Voice’s coverage, we would not know about Jeff Rosen’s “Trump will love this” fundraising email sent to AIPAC donors.
It is deeply concerning to see the DA use his office to support the political goals of campaign contributors while simultaneously over-prosecuting protesters—for example, bringing felony charges against a “No King’s Day” organizer for writing on a sidewalk with washable chalk.
The court’s decision to recuse the entire DA’s office is a significant win for accountability in Santa Clara County. We rely on the Voice to shine a light on these abuses, ensuring that our legal system isn’t for sale to the highest bidder. Thank you, Lisa, for your commitment to the truth.