Jewish groups in California’s Bay Area are protesting a judge’s decision to remove a local Jewish district attorney from a case involving pro-Palestinian protesters accused of vandalizing Stanford University’s president’s office.
Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen was disqualified from retrying a felony case against five protesters after Judge Kelley Paul ruled that Rosen had crossed a legal line by suggesting in campaign messaging that the protest was antisemitic.
“Rosen is allowed to take a strong stance against crime in the community, against antisemitism. But caution and care need to be taken when utilizing active litigation in campaign communication,” Paul said from the bench.
The judge said Rosen erred by publicly labeling the incident antisemitic even though the defendants were not charged with a hate crime.
“This case is not a hate crime,” Paul said. “The characterization of the prosecution as a fight against antisemitism runs afoul of case law.”
In an email to J. The Jewish News of Northern California, Rosen’s office said that while it “disagrees with the judge’s ruling, we respect it.”
Jewish groups warn ruling could reinforce antisemitic stereotypes
In a joint statement, the Jewish Community Relations Council Bay Area and Jewish Silicon Valley said they were “deeply troubled” by Paul’s decision and argued that the case “must proceed.”
“This decision uniquely targets minority prosecutors, suggesting they are incapable of pursuing justice in cases perceived to be impacting their own communities,” the statement said, adding that it “risks reinforcing longstanding antisemitic prejudices and invites future defendants to weaponize a prosecutor’s identity against them.”
The five protesters face felony vandalism and conspiracy charges stemming from a June 2024 protest in which 13 people allegedly broke into Stanford’s executive offices and caused an estimated $300,000 in damages.
A jury deadlocked in February, splitting 9-3 on the vandalism charge and 8-4 on conspiracy. Rosen quickly announced plans to retry the case.
The disqualification motion was filed by deputy public defender Avi Singh, who argued that Rosen had compromised his office’s neutrality by featuring the prosecution on a campaign fundraising page titled “DA Rosen Fighting Anti-Semitism,” alongside a donation button.
Singh argued that the fundraising campaign falsely implied that the defendants were antisemitic. None of the protesters was charged with a hate crime.
Judge removes entire DA’s office from case
Rosen, who has spoken publicly about combating antisemitism and supporting Israel, denied any conflict of interest.
In her ruling, Paul pointed to remarks Rosen made during a March 2025 speech at San Jose Hillel, about a month before charges were filed against the protesters. A video of the speech is linked on the “Fighting Anti-Semitism” page on his campaign website.
In the speech, Rosen equated antisemitism with “anti-Americanism,” a phrase Deputy District Attorney Robert Baker also used during the trial’s closing arguments. Paul ruled that similarities in the language disqualified the entire district attorney’s office from the case, not just Rosen.
In their statement, the Jewish groups argued that Rosen was effectively being penalized for being Jewish.
“Generations of American Jews in positions of public trust have all too often been treated as suspect or inherently conflicted,” the groups said. “This decision risks reinforcing longstanding antisemitic prejudices and invites future defendants to weaponize a prosecutor’s identity against them, casting any public opposition to hate as grounds for disqualification.”
Challenger criticizes Rosen over Stanford prosecution
Rosen’s challenger in the June primary election, former prosecutor Daniel Chung, used the ruling in a campaign video criticizing Rosen’s handling of the case.
“This is a humiliating loss for DA Rosen and his entire office,” Chung said in an Instagram video. “For years, millions of dollars have been spent trying to prosecute Stanford student protesters with felony charges.”
Chung accused Rosen of jeopardizing the defendants’ due process rights and said the case reflected a lack of “integrity, competence, and compassion” in the district attorney’s office.
The ruling transfers the case to California’s attorney general, who will decide whether to retry the defendants, German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor-Black, and Amy Zhai, or drop the charges altogether.