DA gets indictment for pro-Palestine activists in Stanford office takeover, paves way for trial

STANFORD — Prosecutors have secured a criminal indictment against 11 pro-Palestine activists charged in a takeover of the Stanford University president’s office last year, clearing a key hurdle and accelerating the case toward trial.

On Monday, a Santa Clara County criminal grand jury returned an indictment of one felony count each of conspiracy to trespass and vandalism against the demonstrators, who barricaded themselves inside the executive building on June 5, 2024 while demanding Stanford divest from companies seen as supporting Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

Because of the indictment, which supersedes identical charges filed in April, the prosecution moves straight to trial proceedings. Typically, after charges are filed a preliminary examination is held in which both sides of a case can present evidence and testimony to a judge, who decides whether the charges are strong enough to hold a trial.

An indictment bypasses that. Deputy District Attorney Rob Baker cited the logistical challenges of a preliminary hearing with so many defendants, which he said would have taken weeks given that several defense attorneys had already requested extensions because of scheduling conflicts.

“We presented the case to the grand jury to get the case to trial as soon as possible and conserve judicial resources,” Baker said Wednesday. “We feel confident that the evidence is strong and that we can prove our case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Defense attorneys generally object to indictments, pointing to how grand jury panels are held in secret and only involve prosecutors’ presentation of evidence, without any defense participation. Leah Gillis, attorney for defendant Maya Burke, criticized what she called the unusual severity of seeking an indictment given the nature of the charges.

“The students invoked their right to engage in a public preliminary hearing to test the weight of the evidence, call their witnesses and have the truth presented,” Gillis told this news organization, speaking on behalf of the defense attorneys in the case. “The district attorney elected to indict them, which is unprecedented for vandalism cases.”

Baker said his office’s decision was spurred in part by the urgency brought on by the defendants invoking their right to have a preliminary hearing within 60 days of their not-guilty pleas entered Sept. 17.

“Use of the grand jury is not unusual in Santa Clara County, especially in cases involving multiple defendants that would otherwise take up weeks of time in court that could be used to handle many other cases,” he said. “If the court was not able to commence the preliminary hearing within 60 days due to the unavailability of the defense attorneys, the case would have to be dismissed.”

Twelve people were originally charged in April after being accused of causing anywhere between $360,000 and $1 million in property damage in the campus offices.

Last month, one defendant pleaded no contest under a youth deferred entry of judgment agreement; the court will dismiss the case provided he completes a probation period without further legal trouble. The criminal indictment shows this defendant was one of three witnesses who testified to the grand jury.

Protesters were recorded — before security cameras were covered and obscured — entering Building 10 by breaking a window and using ladders, furniture and other items to block doorways.

From inside, they broadcast their political demands on social media. About 90 minutes later, the Stanford Department of Public Safety, accompanied by the sheriff’s office, entered and arrested them.

Authorities contend that the activists ransacked the interior of the building — including damaging door frames and furniture and splattering fake blood — and were found carrying tools including an electric grinder, hammers, crowbars and chisels.

The conspiracy charges are based in part on investigators’ findings that group members discussed planning the building intrusion on Signal, an encrypted text messaging service. Text threads addressed the patterns of security personnel and custodial staff at the building, provided a flow chart covering an array of entry strategies, and attached literature including a “Do-It-Yourself Occupation Guide” that outlined tools and techniques to breach locks, windows and doors.

The specter of criminal prosecution loomed over the protesters for nearly a year until the charges were filed in the spring, and the case has since become a rhetorical battleground.

In previous remarks, District Attorney Jeff Rosen said the activists’ actions crossed a line when they intruded into and damaged the office: “Speech is protected by the First Amendment. Vandalism is prosecuted under the penal code.” He also said he did not view the charges as warranting prison time.

Supporters of the defendants, which include the Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine, have called for the charges to be dropped and argued the criminal prosecution for property damage was a proxy for silencing political speech.

Gillis echoed those sentiments Wednesday.

“At every stage, the District Attorney’s Office has treated this case like something other than peaceful protesters fighting for human rights. This is the next chapter,” she said. “It’s extremely unusual but has become par for the course with this case. We look forward to continuing to defend our clients and the long tradition of peaceful protest.”