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.