Stanford Pro-Palestinian Protesters Case Ends in Mistrial

A judge has declared a mistrial in the case of five pro-Palestinian protesters arrested for breaking into and vandalizing the Stanford University president’s office. The news on Friday came after more than a week of jury deliberation.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Hanley Chew said the jury was “hopelessly deadlocked” on both charges, felony conspiracy to trespass and felony vandalism.

The jury favored conviction by a count of 8-4 for the conspiracy charge and 9-3 for the vandalism charge.

Jurors affirmed to Chew on Friday that more time to deliberate on the counts would not make a difference in the outcome, after which he declared the mistrial.

A mistrial ends the case against the five current and former Stanford students, but Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen has the right to retry the case, which he said Friday he would do.

“This case is about a group of people who destroyed someone else’s property and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage. That is against the law, and that is why we will retry the case,” Rosen said in an emailed statement.

Deputy Public Defender Avi Singh, one of the defense attorneys in the case, said he is grateful for the jury’s time and attention, even if a verdict wasn’t reached.

“Our position is that the proof was insufficient. We had a jury really wrestle with the arguments that were presented, and we are appreciative of everyday people who sacrificed so much in order to make due process real,” Singh said Friday afternoon.

The trial began on Jan. 9, and closing arguments wrapped on Jan. 30. Jury deliberations began on Feb. 2. During deliberation, jurors sent notes to Chew to let him know they were having trouble reaching consensus on the first count, asking for guidance.

Chew encouraged them to continue deliberating and reach a verdict if they could. The jury also took a day off during the first week. The case stems from the actions by a group of what were originally 12 protesters, who were arrested on June 5, 2024, after they barricaded themselves inside the president’s office at Stanford in the early morning hours.

The group refused to come out in their effort to get Stanford leaders to “address their role in enabling and profiting from the ongoing genocide in Gaza,” the group said on social media at the time.

Their action 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. The group was charged with the two felonies in April 2025, when Rosen said the group crossed a “clear and bright line” in their political protest.

“Dissent is American, vandalism is criminal,” Rosen said at the time. His office later secured a grand jury indictment against the group for the two felonies, superseding the initial charges.

Five defendants chose to go to trial: Hunter Taylor-Black, Maya Burke, Germán González, Taylor McCann and Amy Zhai.

Six of the other protesters who were initially charged in the case entered into mental health diversion programs or said late last year they planned to take a court-offered deal that would include pleading guilty to misdemeanor charges, with a pathway to potential dismissal.

One other protester, Jack Richardson, served as a witness for prosecutors in the grand jury indictment and is now enrolled in a youth deferred entry of judgment program, which also offers a path to dismissal, under court-supervised requirements.

Defense attorneys focused their case on the motivations of the protesters, who they said were acting out of a humanitarian concern during what they view as an ongoing genocide, and fear that doing nothing would lead to more suffering in Gaza.

Anthony Brass, one of the attorneys, said the actions came only after Stanford leaders ignored months of demands for discussion about divestment from companies supporting Israel’s military.

The school put the students in an “impossible situation,” he said during opening statements.

Prosecutor Rob Baker told the jury that the case was simple, and said protesters planned and prepared for their action, including bringing equipment and tools to block doors and cover cameras. He said they caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage.

Baker, in his closing arguments, told the jury that their verdict “does not mean that you are supporting genocide” or that they don’t support Palestinians, and he said he believed the defendants were good people.

Singh said Friday he hopes the DA’s office takes another look at the motivations of the protesters in its decision to retry the case.

“There was no question or dispute that these people were motivated by a deep commitment to human rights. And the district attorney’s office should consider that as they weigh whether the interests of justice support bringing a new case,” Singh said.

While thousands of protesters were arrested at college campuses across the country for protest-related activity over the Gaza war in 2024, few of the cases saw felony charges filed, and many of the lesser charges were eventually dropped.

Attorneys for the defendants and their supporters accused the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office of seeking overly harsh punishment to chill political protests and speech related to the plight of Palestinians, which the DA’s office refuted.

The case also saw heated pretrial motions over whether and how often the word “genocide” could be used during the trial.

A hearing to set a date for a new trial is scheduled for Feb. 25.