Defense attorneys yesterday (Jan. 23) argued Stanford students have a well-known history of protesting, and the actions of the Pro-Palestinian Stanford protesters who broke into the president’s office on June 5, 2024, are consistent with previous activists.
Leah Gillis, who represents protester Maya Burke, argued in court yesterday that the Stanford protesters occupied the building because they had seen similar tactics work in past divestment-related demonstrations. In 1977, for example, Stanford students protested against the university’s financial ties to Apartheid-era South Africa.
Students staged a sit-in at the Old Student Union Building on campus and refused to leave, resulting in 234 protesters getting arrested.
Stanford eventually created formal investment policies that laid out guidelines for investing in South Africa-related companies. Gillis and two other attorneys cross-examined witness John Richardson to learn more about the inspiration and intentions behind the June 5 occupation, in which Burke, Gonzalez, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor-Black and Amy Zhai were arrested and now face felony charges of vandalism and conspiracy.
Was it necessary?
Gillis asked Richardson, a protester who was arrested during the occupation and is now working with the prosecution, if he believed the June 5 protest was “absolutely necessary.” Richardson said he agreed, as protesters had been urging Stanford to divest from defense companies tied to the Israel Defense Forces, such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, which are weapons manufacturers.
Abbee Cox, who represents Amy Zhai, said before June 5, 2024, Stanford protesters, including Richardson, attended sit-ins in San Jose, where other community members discussed their protest endeavors.
Richardson said he met an elderly woman who had protested during the Vietnam War and said he was inspired.
Sense of community
“It made me feel supportive and hopeful that we would see change for our cause,” Richardson said.
Cox also argued that in the weeks leading up to the June 5, 2024 event, Stanford protesters had formed a sense of community. When asked by Cox if only students were at the Stanford encampments, Richardson confirmed that there were families and children who visited the encampment.
There was a time when a counter protester had walked through the encampment with a knife, Richardson said, and the protesters were nervous and didn’t want to see a confrontation or fight break out.
“We didn’t want opportunities for the protest to look bad or get discredited,” he said.
Finally, Margaret Trask, who represents Taylor McCann, asked Richardson if art is a common form of protest, and pointed out that the protesters had brought painted banners, or artwork, during the June 5 occupation.
Richardson said art has a lot of “impact and reach” and is known for being a “community-building” activity.
What the DA is arguing
District Attorney Rob Baker is arguing that there is criminal intent for the office takeover on June 5, telling jurors that the five on trial intensified the protest by occupying the university president’s office and using the building “as leverage” for their divestment demands.
Richardson had testified for Baker last week, saying protesters created a group chat to discuss the logistics of how they would occupy the building. The protesters believed they didn’t have any leverage for their demands unless they staged a sit-in at the office, Richardson said.
The trial is set to resume on Monday at 1:30 p.m.