UPDATE: A significant ruling just announced in the felony vandalism trial of five pro-Palestinian demonstrators at Stanford University. Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Hanley Chew has denied a motion from the District Attorney’s Office to exclude the term “genocide” from the proceedings, a decision that could shape the trial’s narrative.
In a tense courtroom session earlier today, Judge Chew also ruled against a motion to bar discussions of political motivations by the defense. However, he emphasized that such discussions would be “severely limited” under evidentiary rules. “I will deny the prosecution’s motion,” Chew stated, while cautioning the defense to use the term “genocide” judiciously due to its powerful and politically charged nature.
The defendants—German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor Black, and Amy Zhai—are accused of vandalizing Stanford’s executive offices during a demonstration in June 2024, which called for the university to divest from companies linked to Israel. If convicted, they face up to three years in jail. Out of the original thirteen arrested, these five remain, as others accepted plea agreements or entered diversion programs.
Supporters of the defendants filled the courtroom, many donning kaffiyehs in solidarity with both the Stanford protesters and Palestinians in Gaza. Tensions were palpable as Judge Chew admonished audience members for disruptions during the proceedings, though order was mostly maintained. After the hearing, demonstrators gathered outside the courthouse and chanted in support of Palestinians, marking three years since intensified military operations in Gaza resulted in significant casualties.
Deputy District Attorney Rob Baker argued that allowing references to genocide and political motivations could lead to hearsay and speculation that would detract from the case. “I’m asking the court to exclude testimony that characterizes Israel’s actions as genocide,” Baker asserted. “Unless defendants personally observed Israel’s intent, it’s irrelevant.”
Defense attorney Leah Gillis responded forcefully, stating that the term reflects the defendants’ beliefs and motivations, and is crucial to understanding their actions. “Israel isn’t a witness, a victim, or the district attorney in this case,” she emphasized, arguing that the court should focus on the defendants’ perspectives at the time of the alleged crime.
Public defender Avanindar Singh, representing Gonzalez, argued that understanding the defendants’ motivations is essential to assessing intent, a key element of the vandalism charges. Judge Chew acknowledged the importance of motivations but reiterated that all testimony must adhere to strict evidentiary standards. “I think defendants do have a right to speak about motivations and actions,” Chew concluded, with the understanding that such discussions would be carefully regulated.
The morning session also saw a rejection of another prosecution motion aimed at excluding political context from the defense strategy. Baker expressed concern that the defense would delve into hearsay and opinions, urging the court to restrict such arguments. Singh countered that the motivations behind the sit-in are crucial to understanding intent and should not be excluded from the trial.
As the courtroom drama unfolds, attorney Tony Brass, representing Taylor Black, highlighted the prosecution’s desire for a trial focused solely on the alleged vandalism. “What they want is a clean vandalism trial, as though these people simply decided to vandalize a building,” Brass noted. “The question is whether they vandalized it, without allowing the defense to tell the human story behind why they did it.”
Several other motions regarding evidence and discovery are set for future hearings, while jury selection is expected to begin in January 2026. The developments in this case continue to grab attention as it raises significant questions about free speech and political expression in the context of legal proceedings.
Stay tuned as we bring you the latest updates on this unfolding trial and its implications for political discourse and activism on campus and beyond.
