Judge disqualifies Santa Clara County DA from Stanford vandalism retrial

SAN JOSE, Calif. - A judge ruled Thursday that Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen and his office can no longer prosecute the retrial of five pro-Palestine activists charged with vandalizing executive offices at Stanford University two years ago during sweeping civil unrest protesting Israeli military action in Gaza.

The ruling settles a dispute brought on by defense lawyers who sought to disqualify Rosen and his staff from re-trying felony vandalism and conspiracy charges, after the first trial ended with a jury deadlocked 9-3 and 8-4 in favor of conviction for the respective counts.

In a recusal petition reviewed by Superior Court judge Judge Kelley Paul, attorneys for German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor Black and Amy Zhai co-signed an argument asserting that Rosen, and by extension his office, was conflicted by his "monetizing" of the case by highlighting it in his fundraising efforts for a fifth term in office.

After battling in court over defense requests for Rosen's fundraising records, Paul granted the disclosure of select literature, correspondence, and other related records, most notably regarding a Dec. 14 fundraiser, with strict redactions for supporters' identifying information. She drew on those records to reach her ruling Thursday.

"The conflict is so grave as to render it unlikely that the defendants will receive fair treatment," Paul said.

Lawyers for Rosen's campaign argued the subpoenas should be quashed, calling them a "fishing expedition" that lacked justification and violated the "constitutional rights of freedom of association and privacy" held by District Attorney's supporters. The petition argued that Rosen's 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 re-trying the case.

In articulating her disclosure decision, Paul said the court was trying to determine whether Rosen blurred the line between his job as district attorney and his status as a political candidate.

The Stanford recusal motion cited a 2020 San Luis Obispo County court granting of a recusal - later upheld in appellate court- 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 "leading the fight" against similar causes. A judge ruled that he "sought political and professional benefit and campaign contributions in conjunction with the prosecution" of the protesters.

That ruling, named the Lastra decision after one of the protesters, was cited repeatedly by Paul in the context of fundraising emails and public comments Rosen made at the fundraising appearance, which she concluded linked his office's prosecution of the Stanford defendants with combatting antisemitism. She said that "runs afoul of Lastra" in part because the defendants were not charged with a hate crime.

"Caution and care need to be taken when utilizing an active prosecution in campaign fundraising efforts," Paul said. "The 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."

The first Stanford trial was closely watched as it represented one of the most severe criminal prosecutions 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.

"To walk away from the case at this point … would be me giving in to a small number of loud voices," he said in a March interview. "I'm not looking to send somebody to prison … what you should do is accept responsibility for what you did, apologize for it, and make restitution."

In a subsequent April interview with The Bay Area News Group editorial board, he 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's work in areas like domestic violence.

"In this case, because it's about antisemitism, and it's because I'm a Jew, it's the oldest f***ing antisemitic trope," he said to the editorial board.

While his office occasionally voluntarily recuses itself from cases, a forced recusal is rare. The last high-profile instance 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 from the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office. The defendant, a fundraiser for a re-election committee supporting former sheriff Laurie Smith, claimed that Rosen and his office were conflicted because the defendant had fundraised and was friends with Rosen.

A trial court denied the recusal motion, but an appellate court reversed that decision, which meant the state Attorney General's Office then had to serve as the defendant's individual prosecutor in the case. The AG's office soon after opted to drop his charges.

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's Building 10, which houses the president's office, by breaking a window and using ladders, furniture and other items to block doorways. It occurred as campus protests called on the school to divest its holdings from companies linked to Israel over the war in Gaza.

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.

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 allegedly cursing at protesters.

Seven of those arrested settled their cases prior to trial; 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.

It was contentious dating back to pretrial arguments, illustrated when trial Judge Hanley Chew drew strict boundaries on what kind of language and rhetoric could be used in front of jurors. In one of the arguments, Chew allowed references to genocide, but warned attorneys against "exploiting" the word to tilt the jury.

_____

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.

This story was originally published May 7, 2026 at 7:38 PM.