On April 21, Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Kelly Paul ordered Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen to turn over his fundraising records.
Rosen, who once established the nation’s “first-ever” Conviction Integrity Unit to maintain “the highest standards of prosecutorial ethics,” is leading the Stanford 11 case. Now, the County’s justice system is trying to determine whether his actions constitute a conflict of interest.
Deputy Public Defender Avi Singh, who represents defendant German Gonzalez ’27, brought forth the subpoena and is arguing that Rosen’s 2026 re-election campaign “monetiz[ed] criminal prosecution.”
Singh cited Rosen’s campaign website, which includes information about the Stanford 11 case alongside personal donation buttons in a page titled “DA Rosen Fighting Anti-Semitism.” The defense has also alleged that the webpage was included in a campaign fundraising email in December.
The Daily has reached out to Singh for comment.
The decision represents the latest update to a nearly three-year trial that began when 11 individuals barricaded themselves inside the president’s office. The protesters’ trial opened on Dec. 9 with five of the original defendants after three sought plea deals and three others accepted alternative paths. A Santa Clara County Judge declared a mistrial on Feb. 13 due to a hung jury. The retrial is scheduled for May 11.
The subpoena is part of a broader effort by defense attorneys to recuse Rosen from the Stanford 11 case, citing both Rosen’s purported conflict of interest and “baseless accusation[s] of antisemitism” against the protestors, Singh wrote in court documents according to Palo Alto Online.
Paul said her decision to release Rosen’s fundraising records was based on her belief that “[the] documents could lead to admissible evidence and have bearing on statutory and due process rights.”
Rosen’s campaign has characterized the subpoenas as “fishing expeditions” and claimed that the motion “violated the District Attorney’s supporters’ constitutional rights of freedom of association and privacy.” They also claimed that the defense could use the fundraising documents to harass “an ethnoreligious minority.”
Defense Attorney Margaret Trask, who represents Taylor McCann ’14, pushed back on the characterization, noting that the subpoena intended to “make sure our clients are respected.”
Rosen grew “visibly heated” when asked about accusations of monetizing, and attributed the claims to antisemitic prejudice, according to The Mercury News.
“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,” Rosen told The Mercury News.
“This case was argued and submitted for decision to the judge on the current issues, and we stand by the arguments made in court,” said Santa Clara County Multimedia Communications Specialist Kevin Hume in a statement to the Daily.
Paul will issue a decision on the recusal motion on Thursday afternoon.