Santa Clara Judge Kelly Paul says it’s a conflict of interest for District Attorney Jeff Rosen to prosecute five pro-Palestinian Stanford students following a mistrial, and recused Rosen and his office from the case.
Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Kelly Paul has ordered lead prosecutor Jeff Rosen to step down from the case against five Stanford pro-Palestine protesters who barricaded themselves inside the University president’s office in June 2024.
Paul recused Rosen and the entirety of his office from retrying the case, which ended in a mistrial on Feb. 14 after a hung jury. The move comes after defense attorneys raised concerns about Rosen’s conflict-of-interest, which included placing the case on a campaign website titled “fighting antisemitism” and using it in a December fundraising email blast.
It was not that Rosen was Jewish, per se, or even that he had strong feelings about Judaism, Zionism and Israel. but that he used this particular case as part of his re-election campaign to demonstrate his rigor in fighting anti-Semitism.
The website also includes several videos of Rosen with Jewish organizations, including a speech he gave at San Jose Hillel where he claimed “anti-Semitism is anti-American and un-American.” Paul cited the video in her decision, noting that the lawsuit is “not a hate-crime case,” and should not be characterized as a fight against antisemitism. Paul also ordered California Attorney General Rob Bonta to take over the case and lead the retrial on May 11. Bonta can appeal Paul’s decision.
“The court agrees with the defense that the videos and articles posted on the fighting antisemitism campaign page must be considered together as a whole,” Paul said, according to KQED.
The evidence clearly showed that Rosen had very strong views with regard to anti-Semitism, in general, and this case, in particular. Then again, few district attorneys have kind words about murders or rapes, either. It’s hardly uncommon for prosecutors to make note of their cases as evidence of their position in support of re-election, just as their failure to prosecute certain offense is often used in negative ads by their opponents.
But this time, the judge found the evidence of conflict overwhelming.
In her decision, she sided with defense attorneys who cited a series of concerns about Rosen’s actions, including his promotion of the case on a campaign fundraising website highlighting his efforts in “fighting antisemitism.” Rosen is running for reelection this year.
“The conflict is so grave as to render it unlikely that the defendants will receive fair treatment during all portions of the criminal proceeding,” Paul said from the bench in a small San José courtroom.
It’s unclear why, after a jury trial resulting in a hung jury, the issue of fair treatment would have arisen. Usually, the argument relates to the defendant’s case being treated like other similarly situated cases, such as being given a fair plea offer and instances of prosecutorial impropriety. Nothing here suggests any such wrong occurred.
But Rosen is Jewish, and holds a deep attachment to his religion. Does that compromise his prosecutorial judgment? Does the fact that he’s against anti-Semitism suggest he is unable to fulfill his duties in a case that involves implicit anti-Semitism, or at least anti-Zionism? Would the judge similarly recuse a person of another religion who similarly used the case to demonstrate his bona fides in being against anti-Semitism, or does Rosen’s religion distinguish his feelings toward Judaism from those of others who feel similarly about religious discrimination?
It’s a given that most people running, and serving, as a district attorney hold strong feelings toward crime and criminals. There’s nothing odd or conflicting about it, per se, and still most are fully able to perform the functions of the office professionally and with integrity. You don’t have to love criminals to respect their constitutional rights and treat them fairly. Does that change when the issue at hand involves anti-Semitism and the prosecutor is Jewish?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think the concern would be the one you raise in the third to last paragraph. That is, whether by elevating this case for self promotion purposes during the pendancy of the case (regardless of anyone’s religion btw) the DA has committed himself to a maximalist position with the case. I haven’t researched this though and I trust your research that they are being treated the same as similarly situated defendants so assuming all of that is true I don’t think religion should serve as a conflict preventing prosecution.
What an odd conclusion to reach, that a person’s religious and social beliefs would bar them from acting in an official capacity in which they are called to act impartially. The implications and extensions of that idea are so broad as to swallow entirely the role of prosecutor. What really distinguishes disdaining bigotry and condemning the passions that give rise to violent crime? A prosecutor must be allowed some sort of personality and experience given that none of us are robots. A prosecutor who despises crime and its motivations cannot be a prosecutor. Does anyone else even want the job?
OTOH, Rosen himself said, “But in this case, because it’s about antisemitism, and it’s because I’m a Jew, it’s the oldest f***ing antisemitic trope. And that’s exactly what the defense attorney is doing in this case.” Not exactly a sensible statement, but he seems to be saying that asserting that a Jew cannot try a case concerning antisemitism is antisemitic, which thought runs into immediate contradiction in the form of circular logic. Paul relied in part on the statement according to KQED in ordering the recusal. Stating that opposing counsel’s argument might be antisemitic brings the issue of partiality and his identity as a Jew directly to the forefront, unfortunately for Rosen.
Electioneering is electioneering, but comments directly on the case and arguments and counsel are another thing entirely. Whether a Jew can try antisemites impartially and whether Rosen demonstrated his impartiality in this case will always be separate questions with different routes to their separate answers. Yes on the former and no on the latter, perhaps. I couldn’t find Judge Paul’s full reasoning in the few minutes I devoted to reading the articles and searching for it.
Lawyers aren’t impartial. Not ever. It’s not either required or a way to ethically manage any case. We are decidedly partial.
[Ed. Note: Judges too.]
Well, Skink, if this lawyer Rosen wanted to represent his client then he made a misstep somewhere. The proof is in the pudding. So the recusal was baseless, what’s that but another day’s sausage? Judges, lawyers, bench, bar, all fallible humans. And?
We counselors are certainly impartial in some respects. Our duty is to the law and not the client at the end of the day. Or do you make it a practice to misrepresent facts and law in your practice? Not so partial when your license is on the line, are you? Client says lie, and you say no even if the lie could never be found out and would save your client immense burden. You’d even tell on your client when these ethics tell you to. How dare you decidedly partial person.
No, you don’t get to throw nuance out with simplistic bullshit, neither of you. Thanks for interacting though. Valuable these days even when disagreeing.
Like many (Most?) of the men on here, my wife is smarter than me.
She wrote the following in response to the original web posting. She is currently working on her dissertation for her Ph.D. in Holocaust studies at Gratz University.
I find the last paragraph the most interesting. She is nice. I’m not. At some point an antisemitic is going to cross paths with a Jew that is hard core not a sheep.
Mrs. Hunting Guy.
“The ethnicity of the prosecutor was not brought into question before the trial, which would have been the time to bring forth the objection if the issue was truly Rosen’s use of the trial to exemplify his stand on antisemitism. What happened in this case was the original jury deadlocked and a Deputy Public defender filed a complaint to prevent Rosen from retrying the case. The Public Defender who filed the complaint stated that Rosen was implying that the defendants were charged with antisemitism by including the trial on his campaign page. In fact, the defendants were anti-Israel and Pro-Palestine. One can assume that holding those credentials makes them antisemitic.
The Jewish Community Relations Council Bay Area and Jewish Silicon Valley released a statement disagreeing with the decision, saying:
“This decision uniquely targets minority prosecutors, suggesting they are incapable of pursuing justice in cases perceived to be impacting their own communities,” the statement says, adding that it “risks reinforcing longstanding antisemitic prejudices and invites future defendants to weaponize a prosecutor’s identity against them.”
They added that the Judge’s 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.”
A little further research seems to indicate that this is the case with Rosen. His stand against hate is being used as cause to disqualify him. It makes me wonder what will happen when eventually these purveyors of hate meet up with a Jew who doesn’t believe in the myth of Jewish passivity, who realizes that we are not “sheep” who will be led easily to slaughter, as Abba Kovner said when he rallied the Partisans of World War II, the Bielski brothers in the Polish forest and the citizens of the Warsaw ghetto to fight against the Nazi forces. They may be from Texas, Arizona, North and South Dakota or Wyoming but they will be Zionists with the fighting spirit of the ancient Macabees and they will not stand for the continued judicial placating of hate. ”
Hoping this makes it past the TT rules.
[Ed. Note: Smart woman, your wife.]
You are what you is:
The issue was that he tied his election fundraising to this case. This compromised his ability to be impartial.
Kinda late here, but I bet that Bill Baxley, who prosecuted Robert Edward Chambliss for his part in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing was hardly impartial.