Defense attorneys for five Stanford pro-Palestinian protesters are trying to force the district attorney and his entire staff off the case by focusing on what they describe as the DA’s false charges of antisemitism against their clients.
“DA Rosen harbors an unwarranted and baseless view that these defendants are not only antisemitic, but they are also anti-American,” deputy public defender Avanindar Singh argued in a Feb. 25 motion to disqualify Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen and his staff.
A first attempt by prosecutors to convict the five protesters — who occupied and vandalized a Stanford University building in June 2024 — culminated in a mistrial in mid-February. Rosen declared at the time that his office would retry the case.
That effort is now on hold after defense attorneys filed a motion to recuse Rosen and his staff. On March 26, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Kelley Paul granted a motion from the defense team to obtain additional documents that may support their recusal motion.
Paul also pushed back the hearing on the recusal motion to April 30.
Singh filed the recusal motion in late February, less than two weeks after Superior Court Judge Hanley Chew declared a mistrial when a jury failed to come to a unanimous verdict. The jury was split 8-4 on felony conspiracy to trespass with the intent to occupy and 9-3 on felony vandalism, with the majority of jurors in favor of a guilty verdict on both charges.
The recusal motion argued that Rosen, on his personal campaign website and in fundraising materials, unfairly described the case as an example of “fighting antisemitism.” Defense attorneys said such language labels the defendants as antisemites.
“There is no evidence for such animus,” Singh wrote in the motion, pointing out that the defendants have not been charged with a hate crime. “The conflict makes it unlikely the defendants will receive a fair trial.”
A page on Rosen’s campaign website titled “DA Rosen fighting anti-semitism” contains links to media coverage around the time that he charged the 12 protesters. After one protester pleaded no contest, 11 protesters were indicted. Five were tried earlier this year after the remaining protesters received mental health diversions or agreed to no-contest pleas on reduced misdemeanor charges.
Rosen, who is Jewish and whose late father was a survivor of Nazi concentration camps, has openly supported Israelis since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas massacre in Israel. He spoke at an Oct. 22, 2023, rally calling for the release of hostages taken by Hamas on Oct. 7. He spoke again at a Unity March against antisemitism in March 2024 and at the Hillel of Silicon Valley a year later.
Flanked by demonstrators waving Israeli flags, Rosen led a crowd in chants of “Bring them home!” at the Oct. 22, 2023, rally in San Jose organized by UnXeptable, the Israeli pro-democracy group. “This district attorney’s office will vigorously prosecute any antisemitic hate crimes that take place in this county,” Rosen said to cheers.
The defense team alleges that the Rosen campaign’s “fighting anti-semitism” webpage, which includes links to Rosen’s UnXeptable rally speech and others, was also used in a fundraising email blast in early December 2025.
They argue that Rosen’s actions have tainted the entire office.
Meanwhile, throughout the legal proceedings, prosecutors have argued that the political motivations of the protesters are not at issue. They instead focused on the extensive physical damage done to a Stanford building.
In the early morning of June 5, 2024, 12 protesters broke into Building 10 on the Stanford campus, which houses the university president’s office, shattering a window to gain entry to the building. Once inside, protesters barricaded entrances to the building using tools and furniture, covered security cameras and spattered fake blood around the building.
Five protesters –– Maya Burke, German Gonzalez, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor-Black and Amy Zhai –– elected to face the felony charges in court.
Singh said his team plans to issue subpoenas to Rosen’s campaign for additional details regarding a Dec. 5 email and a Dec. 14 fundraising event.
“DA Rosen told the recipients of the blast, and the general public … that his prosecution of German Gonzalez and the co-defendants in this case was part of DA Rosen’s fight against antisemitism,” Singh, who represents Gonzalez, wrote in the reply brief.
Robert Baker, a Santa Clara County deputy district attorney, and Sharon Loughner, a representative from the California Attorney General’s Office, each filed oppositions to the discovery motion.
During a March 18 court hearing, Loughner argued the defense team’s reasoning for wanting additional time to retrieve records isn’t relevant to the case.
Baker said during the same hearing that the defense attorneys requested records from the DA’s office related to Rosen’s personal campaign, which the office does not possess. He also challenged a defense allegation that the prosecution was politically motivated.
In response to a request for comment, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office referred J. to the California Attorney General’s Office, which did not immediately respond.
If the judge grants the recusal motion to disqualify the DA’s office, the case would shift to the California Attorney General’s Office for a retrial or dismissal, per the California Penal Code.
Rosen has served as Santa Clara County district attorney since 2011. He is up for re-election this year.