|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A Santa Clara County judge declared a mistrial Friday in the felony vandalism case of five Stanford University students who had barricaded themselves in the president’s office during a spring 2024 protest in support of Palestine, after he found the jury to be “hopelessly deadlocked.”
The 12 jurors were split 9-3 on the first count of felony conspiracy to trespass and split 8-4 on the second count of felony vandalism. Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Hanley Chew asked the jurors individually in the court room whether they believed any further information or deliberation to reach a verdict, which they confirmed they did not.
“It appears that this jury is hopelessly deadlocked, and I will declare a mistrial on counts one and two of the indictment,” Judge Chew said to the court room.
During closing arguments on Jan. 30, defense attorney Leah Gillis called for a mistrial, describing the prosecution’s behavior as “abhorrent.” Judge Chew denied the motion at the time.
The jury went into deliberations on Feb. 2. On Feb. 5, the jurors sent a note to Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Hanley Chew that they were split 8-4 on a conspiracy charge, but it remained unclear at the time whether they were leaning toward a conviction or an acquittal.
Initially, 13 students were arrested in connection with the protest. The five who proceeded to trial — German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Amy Jing Zhai and Hunter Taylor-Black — were charged with felony vandalism and conspiracy to trespass. Six other protesters who were with them in the president’s office took plea or alternative deals before the trial began. One additional protester, John Richardson, entered a youth deferment program and worked with the prosecution. A student journalist with the Stanford Daily who was covering the protest was arrested as well and later cleared.
Throughout the trial, the defense argued that the protesters did not intend to damage property or remain in the president’s office for a prolonged period of time. During the June 5, 2024 demonstration, the students allegedly broke one window to enter the office and then opened the door to let everyone else inside. They then allegedly barricaded the doors with furniture, hung a banner, spilled fake blood and covered cameras with tissues and cloth.
Before police entered the building, the protesters allegedly began cleaning up the damage and complied with their arrests. Initially, Stanford estimated that the damage would cost $700,000, but a more thorough investigation concluded that $300,000 in damage could be attributed to the protesters, according to court documents.
In order for the prosecution to prove vandalism, they must first prove that the students conspired to trespass and occupy the building for an extended period of time.
Deputy District Attorney Rob Baker, who is leading the prosecution, alleged that the students knew they were committing felony crimes and pointed to messages between the students where they discussed attorney contacts, protective gear against police force, strategies for barricading the building and the option of bringing diapers and electrolytes. He argued that the chats, which took place on the encrypted messaging app Signal, were evidence that the protesters planned to remain in the president’s office for some time and were prepared for confrontation with law enforcement.
But the defense pointed out that the students failed to actually bring longer-term supplies like diapers, and that the protective gear was due to students fearing excessive force by police.
Baker also urged the jury not to consider the war in Gaza or the students’ motivations while deliberating. Throughout the trial, supporters of the students gathered outside the courthouse with Palestinian flags, food and music.
The court will reconvene on Feb. 25 at 1:30 p.m. in Santa Clara County Superior Court Department 24. Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said that the prosecution will seek to retry the case.
“This case is about a group of people who destroyed someone else’s property and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage,” he said in an email to this publication. “That is against the law and that is why we will retry the case.”
This is a developing story that will be updated as more information becomes available.
Mountain View council approves cheaper plan to close downtown train crossing to carsFebruary 12, 2026 10:00 am
Los Altos School District considers removing Bullis Charter from Blach's campusFebruary 11, 2026 2:21 pm