It wasn’t a dismissal of the charges, but for the five activists facing sentencing for the protest at Stanford University in 2024, the case announced Friday by a Santa Clara County judge was seen as a victory.
The jury split 8-4 in favor of the conspiracy charges and 9-3 on the vandalism charges, failing to reach the verdict required to convict all five. After the vote – all of whom said they did not believe further deliberations could produce a verdict – Judge Hanley Chew declared the case.
District Attorney Jeff Rosen said he will seek another trial.
“This case is about a group of people who vandalized another’s property and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage,” said Rosen. “That is against the law and that is why we will repeat the case.”
The case comes a week after the judge first reported that he was hanged on conspiracy charges. Negotiations were also disrupted earlier this week when the judge fell ill and a holiday on Thursday delayed the proceedings until Friday.
The case focused on five of the 13 people who were initially arrested in connection with the damage to the top offices of Stanford University during the June 2024 demonstration that called for the university to divest from companies linked to Israel, months after the country’s military response on October 7, 2023, the attack by Hamas led to widespread criticism for the suffering suffered by the residents of the Gaza Strip.
Opening statements began in early January, and the trial concluded late the same month. Others were initially arrested and accepted plea deals or offered diversion programs.
Defendants German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor Black and Amy Zhai gathered outside court on Friday to thank about a dozen supporters, many of whom have been attending the trial since the defendants first appeared in April last year.
“It is the district attorney who is failing to find us guilty, which is his job,” Gonzalez told this news agency. “His job is to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and that didn’t happen.”
Santa Clara County Deputy Public Defender, Avi Singh, who represented Gonzalez, said that although he hopes that the DA will dismiss the case after losing, the defendant’s lawyers will be ready for a new trial.
“That is the decision they will have to make, and then we have to prepare the case so that it can be heard again,” said Singh.
During the trial, the prosecutor tried to limit discussion of the war in Gaza, urging jurors to focus on the defendants’ actions rather than politics. Lawyers for the accused said that the protest was protected and that there was not enough evidence that the accused intended to damage the buildings.
Prosecutors focused on showing that the protesters caused more than $300,000 in damage to Building 10, including breaking a window to gain entry. Security footage presented during the trial shows the defendants covering cameras with building materials and stacking furniture to block doors.
Defense attorneys disputed evidence that protesters planned to contact police and intended to leave the building voluntarily, saying the protest was intended to be peaceful. They also showed a video of the law enforcement allegedly insulting the protesters.
The jurors did not disclose the issues that separated them, and although the judge allowed further discussion of the incident after the court was dismissed, the jurors did not sit to answer questions.
Supporters say the prosecution was an attempt to suppress dissent. Tori Porell, a senior staff attorney at Palestine Legal, said the case was an “experiment to try to end tensions with impunity” and reflected the “changing times” as public support for the Palestinians grew.
The Stanford case stands out from other campus protest cases across the country.
Charges were eventually dropped against protesters who were arrested during the 2024 protest at Columbia University. Criminal charges involving protesters at the University of Michigan were later dropped. After the arrest in the Gaza camp at UCLA, the Los Angeles city attorney declined to file criminal charges, even though many students faced disciplinary action.
For the Stanford defendants, the case brings relief but also continued inconvenience.
Gonzalez, now a Stanford student studying urban studies, said the ongoing court dates have interfered with his education and work.
“I can’t go to class this term … I can only go to class when there is no court and there is always a court,” she said. “I should be able to work now and feed my family but I won’t be able to because of this.”
Zhai, who graduated last year, said he was unable to return home to Maryland during the trial but intends to return soon.
“I didn’t expect to be here this long. I’m not from the Bay. I grew up in Maryland. … I’m happy,” he said. “If the DA doesn’t dismiss it, I’m ready to go to trial, too. And I think we’re going to get a good idea about that.”
