|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Attorneys concluded on Friday their closing statements in the felony trial against five Stanford University students who are being charged with conspiracy to trespass and vandalism, after they barricaded themselves in the president’s office building in a 2024 pro-Palestine protest.
Three weeks after the high-profile trial began for German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Amy Jing Zhai and Hunter Taylor-Black, defense attorneys argued on Thursday and Friday that there was no evidence that their clients planned to damage property or stay in the building for a prolonged period. The defense encouraged jurors to presume the students’ innocence due to the lack of evidence.
Deputy District Attorney Rob Baker, who is leading the prosecution, alleged that the students knew they were committing felony crimes and that the defendants aided and abetted those who may have vandalised the building. He also urged the jurors not to consider genocide, global war or the students’ motivations.
The university originally estimated $700,000 in repairs, but a more detailed investigation concluded that $300,000 in damage could be attributed to the protest, according to court documents. Two door frames, which appeared to be chipped from force, cost $12,000 to repair, according to Baker, and an antique grandfather clock with few spatters of fake blood cost thousands to “assess.”
But before the prosecution can prove vandalism, it must prove the students conspired to trespass and occupy – or remain on private property for a long period of time.
Much like in his opening statements, Baker painted a picture of a highly organized student group whose members planned every aspect of their action and who intended to stay in the building for as long as possible and vandalise the office.
The 12 protesters entered the university building in June 2024 by breaking one window and allowing the remaining students to enter through a door. Once inside, the group covered cameras with tissue and foil paper, stacked furniture to block doors, then hung up banners and chanted, according to attorneys and witness testimony. The action came after students said Stanford did not respond to various requests to discuss divestment from companies that supply military aid to Israel.
Remaining protesters Cameron Michael Pennington, Kaiden Wang, Eliana Lindsay Fuchs, Gretchen Rose Giumarin, Isabella Terrazas and Zoe Georgia Edelman took plea or alternative deals before the trial began. John Richardson entered a youth deferment program and worked with prosecution.
Baker argued that the students planned for an extended stay and a possible confrontation, pointing to Signal chats that showed the students discussing attorney contacts, protective gear against police force, how to barricade the building and the possibility of bringing diapers and electrolytes into the building, Baker said.
“To say this was a sit-in is a disservice to those who conduct real peaceful law-abiding sit-ins, it’s a disservice to people who are protesting on campuses across the country the right way,” he said.
Defense attorneys countered that there is little evidence that the students wanted to stay in the building for a long time. They did not bring electrolytes or diapers and there was no direct evidence that they wanted to vandalise the building.
Defense attorney Avi Singh said the students wore protective gear and barricaded in fear of excessive and immediate police force. He referenced moments in which a police officer used profanity against a student, as captured by a body camera.
“Don’t get arrested, b-tch…that’s the cost of doing business,” the officer said.
Video evidence also showed a police officer admitting that students were willing to exit the building peacefully, one by one. Students said they expected an opportunity or warning to exit the building peacefully, according to Signal chats obtained by the prosecution.
In the closing statements, the defense attorneys also pointed to the flow chart the students made to plan their entry into the building. Primary options included opening windows and bribing staff for entry, while minimizing damage to the building. There was no plan to spill fake blood or spray paint, which the protesters attempted to clean up, according to court documents and messages between protesters.
While there is limited evidence that shows defendants causing property damage, Baker said defendants could be charged with aiding and abetting, because they entered the building after a window was broken. He claimed their participation could be seen as encouragement of vandalism. Students also left a piece of plywood near the broken window before their entrance, according to Signal chats, which suggests that they planned to break and seal the window beforehand, he argued.
But the defense asked why Baker did not call to the stand investigating officers who were more involved with the case and an officer who was recorded saying that the students were willing to exit the building.
Baker appeared dismissive of the defendants’ motivations, saying that they stemmed from issues on “the other side of the world.” He also suggested that their action led to the disruption of peaceful protests on campus.
“These kids are just repeating all this stuff they hear on the internet,” he said.
The defense, by contrast, urged the jury to consider the students’ motivation – not just their actions. In their closing statements, the defense attorneys described the students’ dedication to making positive change and ending suffering in Gaza, referencing various times in which the university has divested from harmful causes, like fossil fuels and apartheid in South Africa.
“Our clients could not and would not abide by that status quo so they acted, they acted because they could not accept their university’s complicity in the horrors going on in Gaza,” said defense attorney Abbee Cox.
Defense attorney Leah Gillis called for a mistrial following Baker’s closing statements, calling his behavior “abhorrent.” She referenced moments in which Baker questioned the feelings of safety among jurors and contrasted a witness protester’s regard for the life of people in Gaza with his pro-choice position on abortion.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Hanley Chew denied the mistrial motion but did not completely remove the option from the table. Gillis may reintroduce the claim before the jury begins its deliberation on Monday.
Outside of the courthouse, the tense energy between both parties subsided as dozens of supporters, many of whom attended various updates, played music and waved Palestinian flags. Supporters sat in the grass during the closing arguments on Thursday, shared food and met with defendants.
“The courtroom is literally overflowing with people for a protest that happened 18 months ago, and one of the most insane abuses of power by a district attorney here in Santa Clara County, we’re just thankful for the continued support,” Gonzalez said to a crowd outside of the courthouse.
Mountain View council approves cheaper plan to close downtown train crossing to carsFebruary 12, 2026 10:00 am
I am impressed that throughout this trial, the Mountain View Voice has consistently provided the most accurate reporting, much better than media organizations with much larger budgets. It says a lot about the current Stanford administration that they chose to damage their own building for a show of police force rather than simply ask their own students to exit peacefully. This is clearly a politically motivated trial by DA Jeff Rosen’s office to silence discussion of Israel’s war crimes and ongoing genocide in Palestine.