BY DAVE PRICE
Daily Post Editor
I don’t want to believe the allegations against Santa Clara County District Jeff Rosen because, if they’re true, they represent a lapse in ethical judgment.
Rosen is accused of using his prosecution of pro-Gaza protesters at Stanford to raise campaign funds from supporters of Israel.
Avi Singh, an attorney for defendant German Gonzalez, argues that Rosen and his entire office should be kicked off the case because they have a conflict of interest. The conflict, Singh says, is that on Rosen’s campaign website there’s a description of the Stanford case alongside donation buttons with the title “DA Rosen Fighting Anti-
Semitism.” The implication is that if you oppose the protesters’ cause, send the DA money.
We don’t know yet how much money Rosen raised. But I know one thing: A DA shouldn’t be mixing political fundraising with the prosecution of cases.
Imagine if Rosen did that in other cases. Say he has to prosecute a man for murder, but decides he can use the case to make some money. So he sets up a donation page to convict the defendant and send him to prison for life. If he doesn’t get enough money, he argues for probation.
I don’t want to believe these allegations against Rosen, but Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Kelley Paul has given the defense attorneys the right to subpoena records to investigate the claims.
The defense is collecting the information in its effort to get Rosen and his employees recused from the case.
In writing this, I’m not taking sides for or against Israel or the protesters. Obviously, if Rosen wants to support Israel, he has every right to do so when he’s off the clock. But he should leave his political beliefs at the door. We don’t vote for DAs based on whether they support Israel, China or Northern Ireland. The DA is the one job that should be politically neutral. (Yes, running for DA is political. But prosecuting shouldn’t be political.)
The case returns to court on April 20 to review what records the defense has obtained with its newly-granted power of subpoena. Then Judge Paul will issue a decision on April 27.
Originally, 12 protesters were arrested for vandalizing the Stanford president’s office in 2024. Seven of the protesters took plea bargains or entered diversion programs that will give them clean records if they stay out of trouble. Five of the defendants — Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor Black and Amy Zhai — went on trial earlier this year. The jury was unable to reach unanimous verdicts. At this point, a prosecutor — whether it’s Rosen or somebody appointed to replace him — will have to decide whether to try the five again.
Editor Dave Price’s column appears on Mondays.
The aggrieved party is Stanford and Stanford wants them prosecuted. If Rosen is doing something improper it’s an entirely different issue.
Thanks for stating the obvious. This is about Rosen making a poor decision.
If Rosen is proud of his actions, then he should voluntarily turn over the information about his fundraiser. He would only be keeping it secret if he didn’t want his activities revealed.
Rosen is making a poor decision, and it is a conflict of interest. You can’t mix political fundraising with prosecution of cases, but there isn’t much anyone can do with his sensitivity towards anti-Semitism. For those of us who aren’t Jewish, we can’t relate to the sting. That’s all it is. He’s human like the rest of us.
It is obvious that Jeff Rosen prioritizes prosecutions pushed by his political supporters over ones that strictly promote public safety. This trial already lasted 3 weeks + 5 days of deliberations. Just think about all the other crimes that this courtroom could have been used for. Then Rosen complains that the upcoming budget of an additional $8,000,000 over last year will not be enough to keep the community safe.
When you repeatedly do the same thing, sometimes you become unaware of how others can perceive your behavior. This could provide an explanation of the absurdity of soliciting campaign donations in conjunction to advertising a particular prosecution.
There are others that have complained about this kind of quid pro quo. Anthony Becker expressed this type of frustration during his own prosecution. Similarly, Rosen invested a lot of time, attention and resources into those proceedings when he could have focused on violent crimes, child abuse, and rape.
Just wondering, did you publish a similar article regarding the head of Santa Clara board of education? Maimona Berta pushed for a “ceasefire in Gaza” resolution on the board of education, and fundraising for CAIR – an organization designated as a terrorist organization in some US states and mentioned in the Muslim Brotherhood plan for North America…
What a poor analogy. Ms. Berta has no power to take away your liberty, prosecute, or imprison you. While the allegations, if true, are pure virtue signaling, they don’t come close to having the coercive authority of a prosecutor. As for your claims about CAIR, two Zionist-Christian governors controlled by the Israel lobby AIPAC, issued EOs in 2025, purely on political grounds, with no factual basis or evidence to backup the designations.
George Kennedy was the last great DA.
Santa Clara County used to be a place where the focus was on justice, not wokeness and the personal profit or advancement of the DA and their administration.
Supporter of this comment….
We need a new DA!
My impression is that these students are let go that they will get a better deal than their colleagues who took plea bargains. How is that fair?
You are grossly mistaken. This would be akin to saying that MADD or Mothers Against Drunk Driving cannot contribute as it is a conflict of interest due to DUI arrests. Want another analogy? He can’t take money from Black people because he prosecuted hate crimes against the KKK. Gaza is run by Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Anyone supporting it should be ashamed. The Daily Post should fire you and contribute your salary to Rosen.
Accepting money from a defendant or victim creates an apparent conflict of interest that can lead to accusations of bias, where the prosecutor’s judgment might be compromised. If Rosen does this regularly, donors will come to believe that they can affect the outcome of a case. Mr. Price is correct in raising these ethical concerns. Rosen should return the money he has received and apologize.