Political expression or vandalism? High-profile Stanford felony trial opens

Opening arguments in a Stanford felony vandalism case began Friday amid sharp disputes over whether political views tied to Israel’s war in Gaza should factor into the trial — an issue that has shaped the case from its earliest stages.

Almost two years after 13 people were arrested for allegedly damaging Stanford University’s executive offices during a June 2024 protest urging the school to divest from companies linked to Israel, five defendants are now on trial in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The remaining defendants — German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor Black and Amy Zhai — face felony vandalism and conspiracy charges that carry potential prison sentences of up to three years, making the case among the most serious prosecutions tied to pro-Palestine campus protests nationwide.

Deputy District Attorney Rob Baker framed the case as a straightforward criminal matter, telling jurors that political motivations do not excuse the alleged property damage.

“Dissent is American, but vandalism is criminal,” Baker said.

Defense attorneys, meanwhile, argued the protesters actions were driven by humanitarian concerns, not criminal intent.

“What I’m asking you to consider is what was in their hearts,” said public defender Avi Singh.

After months of campus encampments, Baker argued the defendants escalated their protest by occupying the university president’s office and using the building “as leverage over the university.”

In the weeks leading up to trial, Baker filed several motions seeking to limit references to Gaza and the defendants’ political views. Judge Hanley Chew denied those requests but said discussion of the war would be “severely limited.”

On Friday, after Chew instructed jurors on how to evaluate opening statements, Baker presented surveillance footage from Building 10, Stanford’s executive offices. He highlighted video from the morning of June 5 that he said shows the defendants using ladders, plywood and other materials to barricade entrances.

“These defendants brought three ladders with them to seal all three doors,” Baker said. “The goal was to barricade the building, occupy it and hold it as leverage over the university.”

Prosecutors also showed footage of sheriff’s deputies using bolt cutters to breach the barricaded entrance.

The video depicts deputies struggling to enter before getting inside and arresting demonstrators, who had been broadcasting demands that Stanford place divestment proposals on an upcoming Board of Trustees agenda. While the footage has been admitted, jurors were instructed not to weigh it as evidence until deliberations.

Singh, who represents Gonzalez — whom Baker described as a “ringleader” in his opening — was the first defense attorney to deliver an opening statement.

He characterized the occupation as a “campus sit-in to save lives,” arguing the defendants were driven by deeply held beliefs about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, not criminal intent.

Singh said the students believed Stanford’s investments were linked to civilian suffering and that their goal was to pressure the administration to consider divestment, not to permanently occupy or damage the building.

The first tense exchange came when Singh tried to show the jury documents from “Cryptpad” — an encrypted document sharing platform — referencing the war in Gaza. He said the files were key to the defense’s claim that the students acted out of humanitarian concerns and a push for divestment, not criminal intent.

Baker immediately objected and said displaying the files and suggesting jurors would later receive them was improper unless their relevance to the defendants’ state of mind had first been established. Singh countered that the documents were necessary to show the students’ intent and provided circumstantial evidence of their motivations.

The dispute was resolved after Singh agreed to provide additional context, explaining that the files were collaborative documents shared among participants through the messaging app Signal.

Chew told jurors that neither the Cryptpad documents nor the prosecution’s surveillance videos shown during Baker’s opening could be considered evidence during opening statements.

Singh framed his defense around the students’ intent to minimize harm, telling jurors that Signal messages urged protesters to “stick to the guiding principles” and noting that some students began cleaning offices with Clorox wipes before deputies entered — evidence he said undercuts claims of malicious intent.

Singh urged jurors to view the protest within a broader historical context, comparing it to anti-apartheid divestment campaigns targeting South Africa.

The protest followed campus encampments that emerged nationwide after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza. Throughout pretrial proceedings, attorneys repeatedly clashed over whether political expression related to Gaza could be considered a legitimate defense.

The courtroom was filled with supporters wearing keffiyahs in solidarity with the defendants and Palestinians in Gaza. Outside, they gathered peacefully for lunch, with no formal demonstrations.

In a statement, Stanford student and Drop the Charges organizer Mark Allen Cu said the case raises broader questions about free speech and dissent on campus.

“Are Santa Clara County and Stanford University places that protect free speech and dissent, or not?” Cu said.

Cu also disputed prosecutors’ claims that the defendants caused up to $300,000 in damage.

“Their pursuit of felony charges and restitution demands are not just an attempt to punish the Stanford 11,” Cu said. “They are an attempt to silence future activism in solidarity with Palestine.”

Elsewhere, similar protest cases have largely resulted in dropped charges.Most of those arrested during a 2024 Columbia University protest had charges dismissed, felony cases against protesters at the University of Michigan were later dropped, and after arrests at a UCLA Gaza encampment, the Los Angeles city attorney declined to file criminal charges, though many students faced campus discipline.