Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen walks from the Santa Clara Hall of Justice in San Jose, Calif., on Friday, July 18, 2025. (Shae Hammond/Bay Area News Group)

Stanford felony vandalism defendant seeks to recuse Santa Clara DA ahead of retrial

Judge hears motion March 18 as prosecutors prepare for March 23 retrial

by · The Mercury News

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Attorneys for one of the five pro-Palestinian activists accused of felony vandalism during a 2024 Stanford University protest are asking a judge to remove the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office from retrying the case, arguing that District Attorney Jeff Rosen has a conflict of interest that undermines the defendants’ right to a fair trial.

Deputy Public Defender Avi Singh, who represents defendant German Gonzalez, filed the motion on Feb. 25, citing Rosen’s fundraising campaign highlighting the case and the prosecution’s conduct during the first trial.

The request follows a mistrial declared Feb. 13 after jurors split 8-4 in favor of guilt on the conspiracy charge and 9-3 on the felony vandalism count, short of the unanimous verdict required for conviction.

According to Singh’s motion, less than 30 minutes after the mistrial, Rosen publicly announced his intent to retry the case. Singh cited that swift declaration as evidence of bias, quoting Rosen as saying the case involved “a group of people who destroyed someone else’s property and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage.”

That motion is set to be heard by a Santa Clara County judge on March 18, with the retrial set for March 23.

When a motion seeks to recuse a district attorney, the attorney general’s office represents the prosecution because the district attorney’s office is a party to the case. While the office has occasionally stepped aside after determining it had a conflict of interest, court-ordered removals are rare.

At the center of the recusal motion is Rosen’s alleged use of the high-profile case in campaign fundraising. Singh argues that Rosen highlighted the prosecution of the “Stanford 5” on his campaign website “directly alongside ‘Donate to Jeff’ buttons,” and on a page titled “DA Rosen Fighting Anti-Semitism,” among other accusations.

Rosen’s office declined to comment on the motion, deferring to the attorney general, who did not respond to requests for comment.

The case stems from a June 2024 demonstration in which protesters, who briefly occupied the university’s executive offices, called on Stanford to divest from companies linked to Israel over the war in Gaza. University officials say demonstrators caused at least $300,000 in damage to the buildings.

Of the 13 people arrested, 11 were indicted by a grand jury on felony charges and five went to trial: Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor Black and Amy Zhai, dubbed the “Stanford 5.” If convicted, they face up to three years in prison and restitution. The remaining defendants either entered diversion programs or accepted plea deals.

The prosecution is among the most serious criminal cases brought nationwide in connection with the wave of pro-Palestinian campus protests that swept the country in 2024. Similar cases stemming from demonstrations at Columbia University, the University of Michigan and UCLA were either dismissed or not pursued criminally.

“District Attorney Jeff Rosen’s actions in this case, together with the actions of DA Rosen’s trial deputy, demonstrate a conflict that requires recusal of DA Rosen and the entire District Attorney’s Office,” Singh wrote.

To demonstrate the district attorney’s alleged bias, the motion highlighted the examination of witness John Richardson, a Loyola Marymount University student from the Bay Area who was among the 13 arrested in 2024 but later entered a youth diversion program after pleading no contest.

During the trial, Richardson was questioned about his views on the Holocaust, the Russia-Ukraine war and the Oct. 7 attacks. The defense argues these lines of inquiry were unrelated to the felony charges and intended to discredit the protesters’ political beliefs. The motion also cited the prosecution’s attempt to bar the use of the word “genocide” as an example of bias.

Singh argues in his motion the cumulative effect demonstrates how the prosecution prioritized political considerations over impartial enforcement of the law. Throughout the trial, however, prosecutors maintained it was the defense that placed undue emphasis on political views to distract from the alleged criminal conduct.

Singh declined to comment further on his motion.

Stanford has become a flashpoint for pro-Palestinian expression and accusations of antisemitism on campus. Separate subcommittees in 2024 found a basis for alleged antisemitism and anti-Israel bias, as well as documented cases of Islamophobia and discrimination against Muslim, Arab and Palestinian students.

Outside of the campus, the case has underscored how deeply divided views over the war in Gaza have complicated court proceedings, with attorneys clashing over whether political opinions should influence jury selection, defense arguments or witness testimony.

If the motion is granted, it would mark one of the rare instances in Santa Clara County in which a district attorney’s office is removed from a case. The attorney general would then have the discretion to assume the prosecution or dismiss the charges.

A similar situation arose earlier this decade in a 2020 pay-to-play scandal involving concealed-carry weapons permits under former Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith. One of four people indicted argued the district attorney’s office was in conflict of interest because of the defendant’s past friendship with Rosen and the fundraising work performed for the district attorney.

A Superior Court judge in 2021 rejected the recusal motion, but the 6th District Court of Appeal later overturned that decision. The attorney general’s office was appointed to prosecute the defendant and later dismissed the conspiracy and bribery charges.

Share this:

RevContent Feed