Judge bars Jewish DA from trying Stanford anti-Israel protesters, alleging conflict

Times of Israel ^ | 5/12/2026 | Niva Ashkenazi

[mac_truck]

Jewish groups in the Bay Area of California are protesting a judge’s removal of a local Jewish district attorney from a case involving pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protesters accused of vandalizing the office of Stanford University’s president.

The district attorney, Jeff Rosen, was disqualified from retrying a felony case against five protesters after the judge ruled that Rosen had crossed a legal line when suggesting in a campaign message that the protest was antisemitic.

“Rosen is allowed to take a strong stance against crime in the community, against antisemitism. But caution and care need to be taken when utilizing active litigation in campaign communication,” Judge Kelley Paul said from the bench.

The judge said Rosen had erred when publicly labeling the incident antisemitic when it was not charged as a hate crime.

“This case is not a hate crime,” Paul said. “The characterization of the prosecution as a fight against antisemitism runs afoul of case law.”

In a joint statement, the Jewish Community Relations Council Bay Area and Jewish Silicon Valley wrote that they are “deeply troubled” by Paul’s decision and that the case “must proceed.”

--snip--

The five protesters face felony vandalism and conspiracy counts stemming from a June 2024 protest in which 13 people broke into Stanford’s executive offices and caused an estimated $300,000 in damages. A jury deadlocked in February, splitting 9-3 on the vandalism count and 8-4 on conspiracy. Rosen quickly announced his plan to retry them.

The disqualification motion was filed by deputy public defender Avi Singh, who argued that Rosen had compromised his office’s neutrality by featuring the prosecution on a campaign fundraising page titled “DA Rosen Fighting Anti-Semitism,” alongside a donation button.

---

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; US: California
KEYWORDS: antisemitism; california; palestine; protests; stanford

[Uncle Miltie]

U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3:

“...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

[Opinionated Blowhard]

Its OK as long as he wears one of these.

[Alberta's Child]

To be fair, it looks like the guy would have been disqualified regardless of his religion. Any lawyer will tell you that a prosecutor should exercise great care when making public statements about a criminal case.

[mac_truck]

Not sure what that comment was supposed to mean as the judge in this case made it clear that the DA was disqualified based on his behavior not his ethnicity or religion.

He’s also NOT being disqualified from holding the office...although it sounds like voters next month may decide to remove him anyway.

[Uncle Miltie]

My Constitutional point was aimed at you, not the judge.

I know why you post.

[mac_truck]

I know why you post.

[gnarledmaw]

There was a thread some years back about a DA(?) shot in NY(?) after being involved in prosecuting some drug dealer.

Because he was jewish a number of people jumped to the conclusion that he was shot by anti-semites.

The guy spends a career putting a major cramp in some drug lords income and they decide it was his religion.

If you look hard enough, like a good number of those on this forum, you will always find something that can be manipulated into claiming someone is in some way oppressed.