Los Angeles DA Says Judge Kelley Paul’s Stanford Protest Ruling Was Antisemitic

On Friday, May 15, 2026, J. Weekly reported that Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman accused a Santa Clara County judge of antisemitism for her ruling in a 2024 pro-Palestinian protest case at Stanford University. Hochman, one of the country’s most prominent Jewish prosecutors, made the accusation following a May 11 speech in the state capital.

The controversy stems from Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Kelley Paul’s decision on May 7 to disqualify Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, who is Jewish, from prosecuting the case. Paul ruled that Rosen had compromised the prosecution by publicly labeling the incident antisemitic, even though the charges did not include a hate crime allegation.

In an interview with J. after his speech at the Jewish California legislative summit, Hochman stated, “I think if you are discriminating based on the fact someone’s Jewish, there’s a word for that. It’s called antisemitism… I think this judge, in trying to be fair and impartial, has actually ended up being antisemitic in her own ruling.”

During his speech to approximately 700 attendees, Hochman compared Paul’s decision to a hypothetical scenario involving a Black prosecutor. He suggested that a Black DA calling out racism would not face similar scrutiny, stating, “If it was a black DA calling out racism, there is no planet in the universe in which this judge would have said that out loud… But when it happens to a Jewish DA, all too often we are way too quiet.”

Hochman, a political independent, touched on his Jewish heritage during the May 11 speech, explaining how it influences his work as a district attorney. He said, “When I introduce myself … I tell them about my Jewish heritage. I go back to what my parents taught me… I explain to them that the Jewish word for charity actually means justice. The more charitable and good works you do in this world, the more justice you are bringing.”

The Stanford case concluded in a mistrial in February, after which Rosen announced plans for a retrial. The defense subsequently filed a recusal motion, which Paul granted, leading to Rosen’s recusal and that of his entire office. The case is now under the purview of the California Attorney General’s Office, which will determine whether to retry the defendants—German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor-Black, and Amy Zhai—or drop the charges.

Hochman criticized Paul’s reasoning, emphasizing the rarity of a prosecutor’s recusal, let alone an entire office. He noted that the Attorney General typically intervenes in such situations, effectively declaring a conflict within the DA’s office. However, in the Stanford case, the AG’s office opposed the recusal motion.

During an April 27 court hearing, a representative for the AG’s office argued that the defense’s claim of antisemitism was based “on speculation that an audience might interpret Rosen’s message if they piece together a collection of separate statements in totality.”

Rosen had previously featured the prosecution on a campaign fundraising page titled “DA Rosen Fighting Anti-Semitism,” which included a donation button. Deputy Public Defender Avi Singh argued in the recusal motion that Rosen’s public statements about the case and antisemitism compromised his ability to fairly prosecute the defendants.

Hochman argued that Rosen is facing a double standard, stating, “If he was a non-Jewish DA who happened to basically participate in a candlelight vigil for the victims of Oct. 7, or had spoken out against Oct. 7, or gone to Israel on a fact-finding mission, none of these arguments probably would have landed… It was the additional fact that he was Jewish.” He also questioned the timing of the recusal motion, suggesting that the defense should have sought recusal before the trial if Rosen’s beliefs were genuinely improper.

The recusal motion referenced a March 2025 speech Rosen delivered for the San Jose Hillel, approximately a month before his office filed charges against the protesters. A video of the speech is linked on the “Fighting Anti-Semitism” page on his campaign website. In that speech, Rosen equated antisemitism and “anti-Americanism,” a phrase also used by Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Robert Baker to describe the conduct of the protesters during the trial’s closing arguments.