By Bruce S. Ticker in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
If a Jewish San Jose-based prosecutor thought he was striking a blow for his people, then Jeffrey F. Rosen’s prosecution…his critics would call it persecution…of five friends of the “Palestinians” landed with a thud.
Rosen is not even seeking prison terms for such trivial alleged offenses as breaking into the Stanford University president’s office and ransacking the place. Rosen, who is seeking a fifth term as Santa Clara County District Attorney, did say he wants restitution for what could amount to $1 million.
Yet last Thursday, a Santa Clara County judge issued a rare order recusing Rosen and his entire office from retrying the case. Superior Court Judge Kelley Paul sided with defense attorneys who cited a range of concerns, including Rosen’s promotion of the case on a campaign website highlighting his efforts in “fighting antisemitism.”
“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 San Jose courtroom.
Fair treatment? The judge is right. If convicted, all five should be sentenced to prison terms. It is the kind of case that would benefit from a deterrent sentence. These pro-Arab activists frequently get a slap on the wrist for criminal offenses, which only emboldens them. Time in prison could force them to suffer the consequences for the very reason the concept of deterrence was invented. They will not want to return and their allies who notice such a pattern will be less willing to commit criminal offenses.
If Rosen wanted to strike that blow for his brethren, he would have pushed hard for jail time. These so-called freedom fighters should feel lucky to have Rosen persecuting…er, prosecuting…them.
More importantly, the claim of “fighting antisemitism” is irrelevant, no matter how personally Rosen is affected.
They are accused of committing crimes that are shocking and widely recognized by the public. The defendants even admit they broke in, and it obvious that they vandalized the office at Stanford, which is located in Palo Alto.
Media sources report that a dozen people, mainly Stanford students and alumni, entered Stanford’s Building 10, which houses the president’s office, by breaking a window and blocking doorways with ladders, furniture and other items. They demanded on social media that they wanted Stanford leaders to “address their role in enabling and profiting from the ongoing genocide in Gaza.”
Couldn’t they do that without causing between $360,000 and $1 million in property damage while carrying an electric grinder, hammers, crowbars and chisels, as authorities allege? Why didn’t they address the genocide in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023?
Defense lawyers said protesters intended to keep in contact with police that day, June 4, 2024, and planned to leave the building voluntarily. They argued the demonstration was intended to be peaceful. Is this supposed to absolve them for the alleged break-in and ransacking? They were arrested 1½ hours later.
Seven of those arrested reached settlements – three pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, three agreed to pretrial diversion arrangements and one opted for a youth diversion resolution. For the five holdouts, prosecutors said that in proceeding to trial they were strictly seeking accountability for the damage while the defense called the case an assault on political expression.
Is $1 million worth of vandalism the same as political expression?
Rosen’s office said in a statement, “While we disagree with the judge’s ruling, we respect it.” California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said in filings that the defense’s “claims are meritless, and recusal is not required.”
The prosecutor’s office tried the defendants last February on felony vandalism and conspiracy charges which ended with a jury deadlocked 9-3 and 8-4 in favor of conviction for the respective counts, according to the San Jose Mercury News. Rosen planned to retry the case this month before Paul recused him.
Paul particularly cited a Rosen quote when the Bay Area News Group’s editorial board asked him about the monetization accusations. He noted that prosecutors typically promote their crime-fighting records.
“But 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 said.
Deputy Public Defender Avi Singh previously filed a motion claiming Rosen labeled protesters as antisemitic because of his inclusion of the case on his campaign page about “fighting antisemitism.” That webpage included a video recording of Rosen’s speech before a nonprofit group that supports Jewish college students.
Citing the video in court, Paul stated that Rosen said “fighting for Jews and for Israel is fighting for America, that antisemitism is anti-Americanism, that antisemitism is un-American.”
So, it must be legitimate to discriminate against the Jewish community or any marginal group in America. That is exactly what this judge is saying. Rosen was saying that antisemitism is not acceptable in America. Our country was founded with the intent, if not the actuality, of respecting everyone’s rights. If antisemitism is not un-American, what does America stand for?
“This is a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor, trespass and a felony vandalism case, plain and simple,” she said. “It is not a hate crime case.”
Exactly. It is not a hate crime case. So why drop a wrench into a trial that is not, legally, about “fighting antisemitism?”
*
Bruce S. Ticker is a Philadelphia-based columnist.
Bruce S. Ticker is a Philadelphia-based columnist.