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.