A California judge declared a mistrial on Friday in the case of five current and former students of Stanford University charged over a pro Palestine protest in 2024, after jurors said they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.The case, heard in Santa Clara County, was one of the few instances in which campus demonstrators faced felony prosecution linked to protests over the Israel Hamas war that spread across universities in the United States. The proceedings unfolded over three weeks and centred on competing claims of protected speech and criminal conduct.According to the Associated Press, jurors voted 9 to 3 in favour of conviction on a felony vandalism charge and 8 to 4 on a felony conspiracy to trespass charge, but remained divided after five days of deliberations.Judge Hanley Chew asked jurors individually whether further discussion would help them reach a decision. Each juror responded that it would not. The judge then ruled that the panel was “hopelessly deadlocked” and dismissed them, declaring a mistrial on both counts.
The protest and the charges
The incident took place on June 5, 2024, the final day of spring classes, when demonstrators barricaded themselves inside offices used by the university president and provost for several hours.Prosecutors argued that the group spray painted walls, broke windows and furniture, disabled security cameras and splattered a red liquid described as fake blood throughout the suite. They characterised the actions as deliberate destruction of property.Defence attorneys countered that the demonstration constituted protected political expression and said prosecutors had not proven intent to cause damage. They also argued that students wore protective equipment and barricaded themselves out of concern about potential confrontations with police and campus security.If convicted, the defendants faced sentences of up to three years in prison and restitution exceeding 300,000 dollars.
Prosecutors plan to retry the case
Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said his office would pursue a new trial.“This case is about a group of people who destroyed someone else’s property and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage,” Rosen said in a statement, the Associated Press reports. “That is against the law and that is why we will retry the case.”One of the defendants, Germán González, told the Associated Press that the group would continue to contest the charges. “No matter what happens, we will continue to fight tooth and nail for as long as possible, because at the end of the day, this is for Palestine,” he said.
A narrowed case after earlier arrests
Authorities initially arrested 12 individuals. One person entered a no contest plea under a programme that allows certain young defendants to have cases dismissed and records sealed after completing probation. That individual later testified for the prosecution, contributing to a grand jury indictment issued in October.Six others accepted pre trial plea agreements or diversion arrangements. The remaining five chose to plead not guilty and proceed to jury trial.
A wider national backdrop
The case unfolded against a year of sustained campus demonstrations across the US tied to the Israel Hamas conflict. Students organised encampments, called for institutional divestment and pressed universities to cut ties with companies linked to the war effort.About 3,200 people were arrested nationwide in 2024, the Associated Press reports. Many institutions resolved protests through negotiations or by allowing them to dissipate. In numerous instances, criminal charges were later dismissed.The deadlocked verdict does not resolve the underlying legal tension exposed by the trial. Prosecutors framed the incident as property crime subject to existing criminal statutes. Defence lawyers positioned it within traditions of political protest and civil disobedience.With a retrial planned, the case is likely to continue testing how far criminal law can be used to address acts carried out in the context of campus activism. For universities and students alike, the outcome may shape how future protests are managed, disciplined and litigated.
