Going through a doable mistrial, jurors within the felony vandalism case in opposition to 5 Stanford activists appeared deadlocked Thursday on a conspiracy cost, bringing prosecutors and protection attorneys again to court docket in some of the critical prosecutions of pro-Palestinian supporters within the nation.
Attorneys have been first notified of the impasse Wednesday afternoon and requested to seem in court docket Thursday for a standing replace. Decide Hanley Chew mentioned the jury was break up 8–4 on the conspiracy cost, although he didn’t disclose whether or not they favored conviction or acquittal. Chew instructed jurors to proceed deliberating.
It remained unclear whether or not the break up utilized to at least one, some or the entire defendants. Though the 5 activists are being tried individually, jurors might attain the identical final result for all or determine in a different way for every.
As of press time, the jury had not returned a verdict on the conspiracy cost.
On Thursday afternoon, jurors additionally had begun deliberating on the felony vandalism cost, which carries a possible jail sentence of as much as three years and doable restitution. If convicted on each costs, their sentences would run concurrently.
A continued impasse on both the conspiracy or vandalism counts might end in a complete or partial mistrial, leaving the door open for the prosecution to retry the case.
The trial facilities on 5 of the 13 people initially arrested in reference to harm to Stanford’s govt workplaces throughout a June 2024 protest urging the college to divest from Israel-linked corporations.
The 5 — German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor Black and Amy Zhai — are all Stanford college students or alumni. The others initially arrested both accepted plea offers or have been granted diversion packages.
The case stands out from different campus protests nationwide, the place related costs have largely been dropped.
Prices in opposition to most protesters arrested throughout a 2024 demonstration at Columbia College have been dismissed, felony instances involving College of Michigan protesters have been later dropped, and after arrests at a UCLA Gaza encampment, the Los Angeles metropolis lawyer declined to file legal costs, although many college students confronted campus self-discipline.
On the trial, Santa Clara County Deputy District Lawyer Rob Baker urged jurors to put aside politics, whereas protection attorneys framed the case as protected expression and argued there was inadequate proof of intent to wreck the buildings.
“Free speech is irrelevant to this case,” Baker mentioned. “You don’t get to make use of free speech to commit crimes.”
Baker portrayed the defendants as a extremely organized pupil group that deliberate the motion prematurely, stayed contained in the constructing “as leverage” to push the college on divestment, and vandalized the workplace.
In keeping with prosecutors, demonstrators precipitated greater than $300,000 in harm to Constructing 10 by breaking a window to achieve entry. Safety footage proven at trial was offered by Baker, who identified that the defendants lined cameras with numerous supplies and stacked cumbersome objects and furnishings to dam doorways.
Santa Clara County Deputy Public Defender Avi Singh, who represents Gonzalez, argued the scholars wore protecting gear and barricaded workplaces to not trigger harm, however out of worry of being injured by police or campus safety. To help that declare, Singh performed safety footage wherein a voice will be heard saying, “Don’t get arrested, b****,” which the protection mentioned got here from a legislation enforcement officer.
Protection attorneys additionally argued the protesters mentioned they’d exit the constructing voluntarily, which they mentioned confirmed that the intent of the demonstration was peaceable.
Different witnesses included fellow protester John Richardson, who entered a deferred judgment program final 12 months, and Stanford amenities director Mitch Bousson, who testified in regards to the extent of the harm. The defendants didn’t testify.
All through the trial, attorneys sparred over whether or not political expression might be thought of in evaluating the defendants’ actions.
As early as jury choice, Baker argued that publicly discussing jurors’ views on Israel and Palestine might “poison” the jury pool. Protection lawyer Leah Gillis countered that limiting such discussions would chill candor and undermine the objective of an neutral jury.
In closing arguments, Singh responded to the prosecution’s chorus that “dissent is American, vandalism is legal,” telling jurors the federal government doesn’t get to determine “what’s American and un-American, dissent and never dissent.”
“You determine whether or not their dissent is legal,” he mentioned.
