“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.
