The case concerning the Stanford protesters accused of committing felony trespass and vandalism in June of 2024 is wrapping up after three weeks of trial. On Thursday, the prosecution and defense teams delivered their closing statements in the trial of pro-Palestine campus protesters.
The five defendants, who barricaded themselves in the Stanford president’s office in a June 2024 protest for University divestment from Israel, face sentences of up to three years in prison.
Attorneys debated the limits of free speech and the differentiation between dissent and criminality. The defense asserted the defendants’ actions amounted to a peaceful sit-in, whereas the prosecution said the protesters’ actions were damaging, deeming them crimes of vandalism and conspiracy to occupy.
The defense upheld that the core motivation for the defendants’ actions taken in 2024 was University divestment. “People believed that if the University divested or even talked about divestment, that could save a lot of people,” Santa Clara County deputy public defender Avi Singh, who represents protestor German Gonzalez ’27, said.
Both sides agreed that the protestors were motivated by legitimate humanitarian concerns.
“This is the only case that has gone to this level,” said Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) leader Amanda Campos ’26.
The prosecution reaffirmed its belief that the defendants chose to achieve their goals in the wrong way.
“Saying this is okay is saying that destruction is a legitimate form of protest,” prosecution attorney Rob Baker said.
The prosecution also maintained that the case at hand is about showing that the defendants committed these crimes and should not be argued on the basis of First Amendment rights.
“Free speech is not a defense to this case. You do not get to claim free speech and commit crimes,” Baker said.
The trial is coming to a close nearly two years after 13 people were arrested on charges of trespassing the University president’s office and committing vandalism. The five defendants in this case did not accept plea deals or alternative paths like the other seven.
The jury has yet to begin its deliberations.