Facing sentencing, jurors in the vandalism trial against five Stanford activists appeared dead-set Thursday on conspiracy charges, sending prosecutors and defense lawyers back to court in one of the country’s toughest pro-Palestinian cases.
The lawyers were first informed about the incident on Wednesday afternoon and were asked to appear in court on Thursday to get more information. Judge Hanley Chew said the jurors were divided 8-4 on the conspiracy charge, although he did not say whether they agreed with a conviction or a reversal. Chew instructed the judges to continue deliberating.
It was not clear whether the split affects one, some or all of the defendants. Although the five activists are tried individually, the jury can reach the same result for all or decide differently for each.
As of press time, the jury had not reached a decision on the conspiracy charge.
By Thursday afternoon, jurors had also begun deliberating on a charge of vandalism, which carries a sentence of up to three years in prison and possible restitution. If convicted of both charges, their sentences will run concurrently.
A continued backlog on conspiracy or sabotage counts could result in a full or partial mistrial, leaving the door open for prosecutors to retry the case.
The case centers on five of the 13 people initially arrested in connection with the damage to senior Stanford offices during a June 2024 protest that called for the university to divest from companies with ties to Israel.
Five – German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor Black and Amy Zhai – are all Stanford students or alumni. Others were initially arrested and accepted plea deals or offered diversion programs.
The case has come to the fore in other campus protests across the country, where similar charges have largely been dismissed.
Charges against several protesters arrested during the 2024 protest at Columbia University were dropped, criminal charges involving University of Michigan protesters were later dropped, and after arrests at the UCLA Gaza camp, the Los Angeles city attorney declined to file criminal charges, even though many students faced disciplinary action.
At the trial, Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Rob Baker urged jurors to put politics aside, while defense attorneys dismissed it as protected speech and said there was insufficient evidence of intent to damage the property.
“Freedom of speech does not apply in this case,” Baker said. “You can’t use free speech to commit a crime.”
Baker described the defendants as a highly organized group of students who planned the action ahead of time, occupied the building as a “beneficiary” to push the university to defer funding, and vandalized the office.
According to prosecutors, the protesters caused more than $300,000 in damage to Building 10 by breaking a window to gain entry. Security footage shown at trial was presented by Baker, who testified that the defendants covered the cameras with various objects and stacked large objects and furniture to block the doors.
Santa Clara County Deputy Public Defender Avi Singh, who represents Gonzalez, said students wore protective gear and closed their offices not to cause damage, but out of fear of being harmed by the police or school security. To support that claim, Singh played security footage of a voice saying, “Don’t go to jail, b****,” which the defense said came from a law enforcement officer.
The lawyers of the protest also argued with the protesters that they will leave voluntarily, which they said shows that the purpose of the protest was peaceful.
Other witnesses included protester John Richardson, who participated in the deferred adjudication process last year, and Stanford facilities director Mitch Bousson, who testified about the extent of the damage. The defendants did not testify.
Throughout the trial, lawyers have been debating whether political speech can be considered when examining the actions of the defendants.
At the start of jury selection, Baker argued that publicly discussing the directors’ views on Israel and Palestine could “poison” the jury pool. Defense attorney Leah Gillis countered that limiting such discussions would undermine the credibility and undermine the impartiality of the jury.
In closing arguments, Singh told the prosecutor that “anti-Americanism, vandalism is a crime,” telling jurors that the government cannot decide “what is American and what is American, what is anti-American and what is not anti-American.”
“You decide whether their opposition is a crime,” he said.
