Judge Hanley Chew declared a mistrial today (Feb. 13) in the trial of five pro-Palestinian demonstrators, who were charged with conspiring to break into the Stanford President’s office on June 5, 2024.
Judge Chew declared the jury “hopelessly deadlocked” after five days of deliberation at the San Jose courthouse. Jurors were divided 8-4 for guilt on a conspiracy charge and 9-3 for guilt on a vandalism charge.
District Attorney Jeff Rosen said he would put them on trial again.
“This case is about a group of people who destroyed someone else’s property and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage,” Rosen said in a statement. “That is against the law and that is why we will retry the case.”
The defendants were German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor-Black and Amy Zhai.
The jury started deliberations on Feb. 2, but was out this week due to a juror being sick.
Deputy District Attorney Rob Baker and defense attorneys wrapped up closing arguments for the case on Jan 30.
Earlier, Baker said jurors should convict the five because they intentionally planned to take over the offices on June 5, 2024, to use as leverage to cause Stanford to sell investments in companies that sell products to the Israel Defense Forces, such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.
Protesters had splattered fake blood and broke windows, doors and furniture on June 5, putting the damage at more than $300,000.
But defense attorney Avi Singh, who represents Gonzalez, insists the occupation was peaceful and only meant to raise awareness about the students’ desire to have Stanford sell its stock in companies that do business with Israel.
One defendant, 21-year-old John Thomas Richardson of Menlo Park, pleaded no contest under an agreement that allows eligible youth to have their cases dismissed and records sealed if they successfully complete probation. He testified for the prosecution during the grand jury proceedings.
Richardson’s case will be reviewed by Judge Rebeca Esquivel-Pedroza in Santa Clara County Superior Court on Wednesday (Feb. 18) at 9 a.m.
Judge Chew will hold a hearing on Feb. 25 to pick a date for the new trial.The grand jury indicted 11 others on felony vandalism and felony conspiracy to trespass charges.
Six of the 11 accepted pretrial plea deals or diversion programs, while the five on trial pleaded innocent to the charges.
Three of the defendants who were not in the trial — Kaiden Wang, Gretchen Rose Guimarin and Cameron Pennington — are scheduled to appear in court on Feb. 23 to plead to misdemeanors charges, which were offered to them by Judge Deborah Ryan.
One of those arrested, Dilan Gohill, hired lawyers who said he shouldn’t be charged because, when he was arrested in the president’s office, he was acting as a journalist for the Stanford Daily student newspaper.
Stanford officials claimed that Gohill had no First Amendment right to trespass with the protesters, but later they said they would not discipline him. On March 6, 2024, the DA’s office said it would not pursue a felony burglary charge against him.
Three jurors decided there was no vandalism. Did they look at the pictures? Unbelievable. I certainly hope the DA tries again.
I was part of the jury pool for the case but wasn’t selected. It’s crazy to me that DA Jeff Rosen is trying to go after these kids with felony charges as there is almost zero chance that he is going to get a conviction. Just change the charges to misdemeanors and call it a day.
These kids have all been added to the “do-not-hire” list. Mommy and daddy spent a lot of money on their Stanford education, and the best job they’ll get upon graduation is some low-level local government position. Their dreams of the good life hobnobbing in the Hamptons have gone up in smoke. They better hope they’ve still got an inheritance.
They should apply to the City of Palo Alto for an overpaid sinecure and ask Ms. Julie for a personal recommendation.
An area like the Peninsula, with the long history of liberal activism, is a pretty difficult place to find an unbiased jury for this sort of case. A few of the jurors would have found for the defendents no matter strong the case against them.
This case doesn’t have much to do with the Gaza Strip. That was the cause if the day. They would have found an excuse to vandalize the president’s office if the cause were Black Lives Matter, Occupy, No Kings, Transsexual Rights or whatever. Because they live and breathe the activist lifestyle, they’ll protest anything. They need to face serious consequences as part of their education. Perhaps 6 months in the county jail, with no early release. And each of them should be ordered to pay a share of the restitution. If they don’t pay, it’s back to jail. They’ll grow up real fast.
If they had protested for any of the causes you listed above – BLM, Occupy, No Kings, Trans – they would not be facing criminal prosecution, let alone any university discipline besides a slap on the wrist. But they targeted the one group you are not allowed to protest in the west.
I disagree. This was straight-up unpunished vandalism and the university would have supported pursuing the case no matter what the excuse for it was. If the perpetrators aren’t convicted it’ll set a bad precedent for the future — free rein to trash university buildings. I’m sure the president lost a lot of irreplaceable property. Welcome to Stanford!