ByJTA/NIVA ASHKENAZI

MAY 12, 2026 07:20

Jewish organizations across California's Bay Area are voicing strong objections to a judge's order sidelining a Jewish district attorney from prosecuting pro-Palestinian activists charged with damaging the Stanford University president's office.

Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen has been barred from retrying five defendants on felony counts after Judge Kelley Paul determined that his campaign materials improperly framed the incident as antisemitic.

"Rosen can firmly oppose community crime and antisemitism, but active court cases demand restraint in campaign rhetoric," Paul stated during the hearing.

The judge highlighted Rosen's public description of the event as antisemitic, despite no hate crime allegations against the accused.

"This is not a hate crime prosecution," Paul emphasized. "Portraying it as a battle against antisemitism violates established legal precedents."

Rosen's office, in a statement to J. The Jewish News of Northern California, expressed disagreement with the decision but affirmed respect for the court's authority.

Jewish leaders caution decision may perpetuate antisemitic biases

In a unified declaration, the Jewish Community Relations Council Bay Area and Jewish Silicon Valley expressed profound concern over Paul's ruling, insisting the prosecution continue.

"This ruling singles out prosecutors from minority backgrounds, implying they cannot fairly handle matters tied to their communities," the groups contended. It "threatens to entrench persistent antisemitic biases and emboldens defendants to exploit a prosecutor's heritage."

The defendants face felony charges of vandalism and conspiracy related to a June 2024 demonstration where 13 individuals reportedly forced entry into Stanford's administrative suites, inflicting roughly $300,000 in destruction.

The initial trial ended in a February mistrial, with jurors divided 9-3 on vandalism and 8-4 on conspiracy. Rosen promptly vowed to pursue a retrial.

Deputy public defender Avi Singh filed the recusal request, citing Rosen's campaign fundraising page "DA Rosen Fighting Anti-Semitism," which promoted the case and included a donation link.

Singh claimed the page misleadingly suggested antisemitic motives by the protesters, who faced no such charges.

Judge disqualifies full DA office from proceedings

Rosen, a vocal advocate against antisemitism and for Israel, rejected any appearance of bias.

Paul's order referenced comments from Rosen's March 2025 address at San Jose Hillel, shortly before filing charges. Footage from that event appeared on his campaign's "Fighting Anti-Semitism" section.

Rosen linked antisemitism to "anti-Americanism" in the speech - a term echoed by Deputy DA Robert Baker in trial closings. The judge deemed this pattern sufficient to recuse Rosen's entire office.

The Jewish organizations maintained that the outcome punishes Rosen for his Jewish identity.

"American Jews in public roles have long faced suspicions of inherent bias," they noted. "Such rulings perpetuate antisemitic stereotypes and allow defendants to leverage identity politics, disqualifying any anti-hate stance."

Rosen's election rival slams handling of Stanford case

Rosen's June primary opponent, ex-prosecutor Daniel Chung, highlighted the disqualification in a campaign clip attacking Rosen's approach.

"This represents a major embarrassment for DA Rosen and his team," Chung stated in an Instagram post. "Years of resources wasted on felony pursuits against Stanford student activists."

Chung faulted Rosen for undermining fair trial rights and exposing flaws in "integrity, competence, and compassion" at the DA's office.

The decision shifts oversight to California's attorney general, who must weigh retrying German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor-Black, and Amy Zhai or dismissing the case.