Santa Clara County Superior Courtroom Decide Hanley Chew on Tuesday denied a movement by the District Legal professional’s Workplace looking for to bar protection attorneys from referencing “genocide” within the felony vandalism trial of 5 pro-Palestinian demonstrators at Stanford College.
In a associated resolution earlier Tuesday, Chew additionally denied a movement to exclude political motivations from being argued by the protection, however stated any dialogue could be “severely restricted” beneath evidentiary guidelines.
“What I’m going to rule is that this: I’ll deny the prosecution’s movement. Nevertheless, I’d ask protection counsel to be very considered with the usage of the phrase ‘genocide,’ as a result of, as all of you identified, the phrase could be very highly effective and politically charged. If I really feel that events are exploiting that phrase, I’ll maintain an objection and exclude its additional use. As well as, I’ll give a limiting instruction to the jury,” Chew stated.
Accused of damaging Stanford’s government places of work throughout a June 2024 demonstration calling on the college to divest from Israel-linked firms, 5 defendants stay of the 13 initially arrested. The 5 – German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor Black and Amy Zhai – withstand three years in jail if convicted.
The others arrested accepted plea agreements or have been admitted into diversion packages. District Legal professional Jeff Rosen declined to cost a pupil journalist who was arrested whereas overlaying the occasion.
Supporters stuffed the courtroom gallery Tuesday morning, many sporting kaffiyehs in solidarity with the Stanford protesters and Palestinians in Gaza. Chew admonished a number of viewers members for disruptions throughout arguments, although no repeated incidents occurred. After the listening to, supporters gathered peacefully exterior and chanted in assist of Palestinians, marking three years since intensified navy operations in Gaza left tens of hundreds lifeless.
Deputy District Legal professional Rob Baker argued that permitting testimony about genocide and political motivations may invite rumour and hypothesis.
“I’m asking the courtroom to exclude testimony and argument that characterizes Israel’s actions as genocide,” Baker stated. “Except defendants personally noticed Israel’s intent, it’s irrelevant. Any argument in any other case is predicated on inadmissible proof.”
Protection lawyer Leah Gillis countered that the time period displays the defendants’ perspective and isn’t prejudicial.
“Israel isn’t a witness, a sufferer, or the district lawyer on this case,” she stated. “Utilizing the phrase ‘genocide’ is describing what our purchasers believed and acted on. The courtroom’s job isn’t to determine Israel’s actions; it’s to determine whether or not we are able to argue what our purchasers believed on the time of the alleged crime.”
Public defender Avanindar Singh, representing Gonzalez, stated the defendants’ motivations are central to questions of intent — a key ingredient of the vandalism costs. Chew agreed however confused slim limits.
“I believe defendants do have a proper to discuss motivations and actions,” Chew stated, “however testimony should keep away from non-relevant and rumour proof. The movement is denied, with the understanding that testimony might be severely restricted.”
Earlier within the morning, Chew additionally dominated in opposition to a prosecution movement looking for to exclude political context from the protection technique.
“My concern is defendants are going to stand up there and begin speaking about rumour, opinions, what they’ve seen on social media, what they’ve seen on the information,” Baker stated, urging Chew to limit such arguments even when the movement have been denied.
Singh responded: “Motivations of defendants in reference to the sit-in are vital components with intent. Their causes are related and shouldn’t be excluded. We don’t imagine this movement must be granted.”
Chew stated when he dominated on these motions: “I believe defendants do have a proper to testify to discuss motivations and actions. However when they’re testifying, I’d restrict guidelines of proof in order that non-relevant and rumour proof wouldn’t be testified to. I’m going to disclaim the movement, with the understanding that testimony might be severely restricted. They’ll have a proper in a restricted style.”
Throughout a recess, Taylor Black’s lawyer, Tony Brass, instructed this information group that the prosecution needs the trial to concentrate on the alleged vandalism itself, reasonably than the context behind the protesters’ actions.
“By their actions and phrases, what they need is a clear vandalism trial, as if these folks merely determined to vandalize a constructing,” Brass stated. “The query is whether or not they vandalized it, with out permitting the protection to inform the human story behind why they did it — what introduced them there and their sense of urgency.”
A number of different motions on proof and discovery have been deferred for future hearings. Jury choice is predicted to start January 2026.
