|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Attorneys for the five Stanford University protesters who are facing felony vandalism charges are claiming that the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office exhibited prejudice against the defendants and should be dismissed from retrying the case.
At a recent hearing, Superior Court Judge Kelley Paul responded to the request by giving the defense more time to prove their case and ordered the DA’s Office to hand over documents for evidence.
While the decision was rare, Paul said it is necessary to ensure that the students reserve the right to a fair trial.
This effort to dismiss the prosecutors from the case began just days after a jury declared a mistrial in the case against the students, which stemmed from their protest nearly two years ago. In June 2024, 12 pro-Palestinian protestors broke into the Stanford building that houses the president’s office to demand the university engage in conversations about divestment from companies that supply military aid to Israel. Once inside, the group covered cameras with tissue and foil paper, stacked furniture to block doors, then hung up banners and chanted, according to camera footage and witness testimony.
District Attorney Jeff Rosen charged the students with felony vandalism and conspiracy to trespass after police estimated the building sustained $300,000 in damage. The case, which exhibited notably serious punishments for a university protest, ended in a hung jury.
Rosen immediately announced that he would retry the case, but defense attorneys say he should be excused after highlighting the lawsuit on his dedicated webpage to fighting antisemitism.
“DA Rosen’s baseless accusation of antisemitism is indicative of a bias against the defendants based on their belief that Israel committed genocide against Palestinian people in Gaza,” Defense Attorney Avi Singh wrote in court documents.
The page, which is not linked to Rosen’s main website, was part of an email blast to a “closed community of subscribers” in Los Angeles County, inviting them to a campaign event, according to court documents. Rosen sought campaign dollars through the invitation, which linked the website as proof to his commitment toward “America, the State of Israel, the Jewish People, and Judaism.”
Defense attorneys requested the DA’s Office hand over documents about whom the email was sent to and how much money was raised. They also asked for Rosen’s speech at the Southern California gathering, among other documents. Although the office claimed it did not have the records, Paul ordered on March 26 that any responsive documents must be released to the defense.
Defense attorneys must subpoena information from people or companies that fall outside of the DA’s jurisdiction, such as Rosen’s campaign manager.
The California Attorney General’s Office, which investigates complaints against district attorneys, claims the motion for recusal should be denied. Attorney General Rob Bonta argued that defense attorneys should have proven Rosen’s guilt without requesting additional documents.
“DA Rosen neither vilified nor defamed defendants and/or their movement while fundraising and simultaneously prosecuting defendants,” Bonta wrote in court documents.
Although the webpage mentions multiple times Rosen’s lawsuit against German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Amy Jing Zhai and Hunter Taylor-Black, Bonta claimed this does not specifically imply the students are antisemitic.
It is difficult and rare to prove an entire District Attorney’s Office should be excused, but a San Luis Obispo recusal may have set a precedent for Singh’s motion.
In August 2022, it was ruled that District Attorney Dan Dow was unable to fairly try a group of students who protested in wake of George Floyd’s murder after Dow called the Black Lives Matter movement a terrorist group. Dow expressed further antipathy for the movement in campaign efforts, including email blasts and social media messaging.
Singh said he believes Rosen’s website exhibits similar traits.
Along with information about the Stanford case, Rosen’s website shows various videos and speeches detailing his fight against antisemitism. In one speech, Rosen discussed his creation of a coalition against racism on his college campus, the University of California Los Angeles, and claimed that another student club, the Students for Justice in Palestine, had the opposite intentions.
Along with the five defendants involved in the felony case, protestors Alexis Terrazas, Kaiden Wang, Eliana Lindsay Fuchs, Zoe Georgia Edelman and Isabella Terrazas joined the motion for recusal. These students, who took plea or alternative deals, believe their continued involvement with the District Attorney may be affected by the alleged bias.
The court will review the requested documents at an April 20 meeting and Judge Paul is scheduled to make a decision on the motion for recusal on April 30. The felony retrial was pushed back to May 11 due to attorney scheduling conflicts.
Although defense attorneys are trying to muddy the issue, this is really a simple case. Did these students commit vandalism and/or did they conspire to commit vandalism by planning to occupy and seal off the president’s office in order to force Stanford to divest.