Stanford Protesters Negotiating Plea Deals as Trial Begins

Nearly a year and a half after a group of pro-Palestinian protesters were arrested for breaking into and vandalizing the Stanford University president’s office, a trial is set to get underway.

A group of five protesters is scheduled to go to trial on Nov. 24. They face felony vandalism and conspiracy charges stemming from a grand jury indictment.

While hundreds of students have been arrested at college campuses across the country for protest-related activity since the war in Gaza began, few of the cases have progressed this far. Attorneys for the defendants and their supporters have accused the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office of seeking overly harsh punishment to quell further protests and speech.

On Monday morning, three other protesters told the court they intend to take a deal offered to them by a judge, which would require them to plead guilty to misdemeanors, a plan opposed by prosecutors. Three other protesters recently enrolled in mental health diversion programs.

The details of the misdemeanor deal remain vague for now, but attorneys for those defendants said it would likely include a path for their clients to ultimately have the charges dismissed.

EmilyRose Johns, an attorney representing Cameron Pennington, said the deal would likely require her client to perform community service and avoid any criminal behavior for a certain amount of time.

“The court has indicated that if they’re successful, it may ultimately allow withdrawal of the plea and a diversion deal, which would mean that the clients have no conviction history,” Johns told KQED after a court hearing on Monday.

Prosecutors from the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office oppose the deal, which attorneys said was offered late last week to all the defendants by Judge Deborah Ryan, following private discussions between attorneys and Ryan in court chambers.

A spokesperson for the District Attorney’s Office didn’t respond to a request for comment on Monday afternoon.

“The judge is the current arbiter of justice. The judge is the person who decides what is just and appropriate and can dismiss cases over the district attorney’s objection and can make court offers to clients over the district attorney’s objection,” Johns said.

“The reason that misdemeanors are even on the table is that Judge Ryan has indicated that she didn’t believe this resembled felony conduct,” Johns said.

The case stems from a June 5, 2024, action by a group of a dozen protesters, mostly made up of current or former Stanford students at the time, who broke into the president’s office in the early morning hours and barricaded themselves inside before being arrested.

The group said on social media at the time they wanted Stanford leaders to “address their role in enabling and profiting from the ongoing genocide in Gaza.” It came amid a series of larger campus demonstrations aimed at pressuring the school to divest from companies that support Israel’s military bombardment in Gaza.

District Attorney Jeff Rosen said in April, when he brought initial felony charges against the group, that they “crossed the clear and bright line between dissent and destruction.”

Kaiden Wang, one of the defendants who intends to take the court deal, said the group’s actions fit into a legacy of protest in the region.

“I think that our action is part of the long history of activism in the Bay Area,” Wang said. “The Bay Area seems to be one of the earliest brewing grounds for these types of actions and these kinds of resistance towards systems of oppression.”

The protesters who intend to take the deal, as well as those who are headed to trial, will all still have to contend with the issue of a $329,000 claim for restitution by Stanford for damages caused by the group.

Tony Brass, an attorney representing Hunter Taylor-Black, who is proceeding to trial, said Stanford has refused to talk with attorneys about the figure, which could amount to “crippling debt” for some of the protesters.

Brass said the number could increase or decrease after a restitution hearing, and Stanford’s lack of engagement on the topic makes it hard to know what consequences his client and others may face, and is part of the reason they are going to trial.

Stanford did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“What they’re trying to avoid is unknown consequences, unfair consequences, extreme consequences. And this could all be clarified,” he said.

One other protester, Jack Richardson, served as a witness for prosecutors in the grand jury and is now enrolled in a youth deferred judgment program.

Brass and other attorneys have also taken issue with the district attorney’s motions asking a judge to ban any mention of the word “genocide” from the trial. In those filings, the DA’s office said the word “genocide” is “inflammatory” and would prejudice the case.

Rosen’s office also filed motions asking to exclude the motives behind the actions of the protesters, saying the defense will likely “attempt to use this trial as another form of protest,” instead of focusing on guilt or innocence.

“What matters is only that they agreed to occupy the building and that vandalism was necessary to accomplish the occupation. Their reasons for doing so have no relevance to the issues the jury will be asked to decide,” the filings say. “While such evidence might be relevant at sentencing, it serves no purpose at jury trial.”

The DA’s filings said the defense will attempt to “make this proceeding an extension of the June 5, 2024, political protest by falsely accusing Stanford University of supporting genocide.”

Brass said those motions show Rosen is trying to “present this trial completely sanitized,” without full context.

“These students were acting for a greater good. And their inaction was something they, out of a sense of conscience, couldn’t live with,” Brass said. “They had to draw more attention to it, had to amplify their voice, and this is what they did.”

He also noted that the protesters went into the building when it was empty and did not harm anyone or threaten anyone.

Maya Burke, one of the protesters going to trial, said the motions trying to limit the scope of the defendant’s arguments are “alarming.”

Burke said they are seeking justice.

“There are war crimes on,” Burke said, “and I would hope to see that acknowledged in the court and acknowledged in public.”