Recusal Request Denied in GG26 Case
Christopher Alam – Al Enteshar Al Arabi Newspaper
Supporters of the GG26 gather outside the courtroom prior to the recusal hearing (Christopher Alam / Alenteshar Newspaper )
The request for San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins to be recused from prosecuting the Golden Gate 26 protestors was denied by a judge in Thursday’s hearing at the Hall of Justice. Judge Patrick Thompson ruled that the defense’s argument was insufficient to prove a conflict of interest at the DA’s office that would compromise their ability to fairly pursue the case
However, Thompson dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the defense may file the motion again.
The decision had to do with California Penal Code 1424, which governs motions to disqualify a district attorney or city attorney from a case. The code establishes two factors for disqualification— whether or not there is a conflict of interest that prevents the DA from acting fairly, and whether that conflict is so severe it would make it unlikely for the defendant to have a fair trial.
The defendants argued that Jenkins’ office displayed a strong anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel bias based on several examples. They include a tweet she wrote and later deleted calling San Francisco protestors “pro-Hamas,” failure to punish a former assistant DA for racist emails sent from his work address, and multiple meetings with the Israeli consulate during which she was gifted wine.
Defense attorney Nuha Adusamra pointed out how this is one of only two times in the last 35 years that protestors blocking a bridge got charges. The other time was when Jenkins tried to charge pro-Palestinian activists that blocked the Bay Bridge last year.
“This overcharged, egregious complaint…is in itself evidence of her bias.”
The prosecution addressed each point.
They argued that “interactions with community groups,” referencing the consulate visits, do not affect prosecutorial discretion and are part of the DA’s job as an elected official. They claimed that the “pro-Hamas” tweet was deleted after Jenkins “met with Arab and Muslim community groups,” and added that it was a mistake on the DA’s part to make the post. It is unconfirmed what organizations Jenkins may have met with.
The prosecution also cited the precedent for recusing DA’s, saying that Jenkins has been recused in cases in the past where she had a personal connection to the case being prosecuted. They argued that the examples of bias presented by the defense do not affect prosecutorial discretion to the extent of those past cases, arguing that comments that may offend are not the same as a personal bias.
Using the factors laid out in Penal Code 1424, Judge Thompson ruled that the defense’s argument was currently insufficient, but did acknowledge “the possibility and appearance of a conflict.”
Defense Attorney Jeff Wozniak says they will continue pursuing recusal and dismissal.
“We still stand strong in our belief that DA Jenkins is biased, that she should be recused, and that all of the factors we presented today showing her meetings with the Israeli consulate, her association with AIPAC and with Zionist entities, show that she can not give us a fair trial and should be recused.”
The next court date is tentatively set for Monday October 21st, where the defense’s motion for dismissal of the case will be heard.
This resource is supported in whole or in part by funding provided by the State of California, administered by the California State Library in partnership with the California Department of Social Services and the California Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs as part of the Stop the Hate program. To report a hate incident or hate crime and get support, go to CA vs Hate.
