Stanford Students Plead Not Guilty in Vandalism Case Linked to Pro-Palestine Activism

Defendants charged in the felony vandalism case stemming from a June 2024 pro-Palestinian protest at Stanford University pleaded not guilty Wednesday to all charges at the Santa Clara County Superior Court in Palo Alto.

The 12 defendants — mostly current and former Stanford students and alumni — were arraigned last May and are accused of causing between $360,000 and $1 million in damage during a takeover of university administrative offices, a figure student activists have called an “exaggeration.”

On the same day as the protest, some of the school’s historic sandstone buildings were defaced with profanity-laced graffiti. A pro-Palestine student encampment was also forcibly dismantled following the protest.

Judge Thomas Kuhnle met with the district attorneys and defense lawyers in chambers ahead of a motion to reduce the charges from felonies to misdemeanors scheduled for Wednesday.

When Kuhnle returned to court, he denied the motion without discussion, and no plea agreement was reached. This means a preliminary hearing will proceed on Sept. 29 to see if there’s enough evidence to go to trial, and the activists could face felony convictions.

The courtroom was filled with supporters, though the atmosphere was subdued compared to earlier hearings. Sheriff’s deputies have been assigned to secure the courthouse, and the public has been repeatedly reminded of a standing order banning demonstrations, broadcasting and photography on court property, including the parking lot.

During the May arraignment, supporters rallied in the courthouse parking lot and were threatened with arrest. On Wednesday, supporters wearing keffiyahs left quietly without incident.

The group barricaded themselves inside the offices as part of a campus protest demanding that Stanford divest from companies linked to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. The case is part of a broader wave of demonstrations across U.S. campuses protesting Israel’s war in Gaza and U.S. military aid.

Stanford’s handling of pro-Palestinian activism has drawn sharp criticism from both pro-Palestine advocates and groups alleging antisemitism. Following the hearing, Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine renewed calls for District Attorney Jeff Rosen to drop the felony charges.

“Students are on the right side of history in standing against genocide and injustice,” the group said in a statement. “While DA Rosen risks placing himself on the wrong side of history by pursuing unjust charges that waste judicial resources.”

Rosen has defended his decision to pursue felony charges, saying in April: “Dissent is American. Vandalism is criminal. Speech is protected by the First Amendment. Vandalism is prosecuted under the penal code.”

Earlier this year, the DA declined to charge Dilan Gohill, a student journalist arrested while covering the protest.

The Stanford case comes as universities nationwide face mounting scrutiny over their response to pro-Palestinian activism on cmapus.

In 2024, encampments pushing for divestment from Israel-linked companies spread across campuses, drawing pressure from lawmakers and federal agencies.

Earlier this month, UC Berkeley turned over the names of 160 students, staff and faculty members to federal authorities investigating antisemitism on college campuses, many of whom were involved in pro-Palestine demonstrations on campus.

In a separate case, Stanford’s student newspaper and two non-citizen students, independent of the university, filed a federal lawsuit in August in San Jose against Trump administration officials, challenging provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that they say were used to suppress political speech critical of Israel.

What specific evidence is the prosecution expected to present to support the vandalism charges against the students?

The Charges and Allegations

On September 17,2025,several Stanford University students formally pleaded not guilty to vandalism charges stemming from an incident that occurred on[DateofIncident-[DateofIncident-research and insert actual date]. The charges relate to alleged damage to university property during a pro-Palestine demonstration. Authorities claim the vandalism included graffiti and minor structural damage to[SpecificLocationonCampus-[SpecificLocationonCampus-research and insert actual location].

The students, representing a diverse group affiliated with the Stanford coalition for Palestine and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), face misdemeanor charges. These charges carry potential penalties including fines,community service,and potential university disciplinary action. The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office is prosecuting the case.

details of the Incident & Protests

The incident occurred amidst a wave of pro-Palestine protests on college campuses nationwide, sparked by[SpecificEventtriggeringProtests-[SpecificEventtriggeringProtests-research and insert actual event].Stanford’s demonstration, organized in response to[Specificstanford-RelatedContext-[Specificstanford-RelatedContext-research and insert actual context], initially began as a peaceful rally. Though, tensions escalated, leading to the alleged acts of vandalism.

* Initial Protest Focus: Demonstrators called for a ceasefire in Gaza and an end to U.S. support for Israel.

* Escalation Point: Reports indicate a disagreement with university governance regarding the display of pro-Palestine materials on campus.

* Nature of Damage: Police reports detail spray-painted slogans and minor damage to building facades. The estimated cost of repairs is currently[DollarAmount-[DollarAmount-research and insert actual amount].

Legal Depiction and Student responses

the accused students are being represented by a team of attorneys from[LawFirmName-[LawFirmName-research and insert actual firm], specializing in student rights and protest law. The defense argues that the charges are politically motivated and infringe upon the students’ First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

“We believe these charges are an attempt to silence legitimate political expression,” stated[AttorneyName-[AttorneyName-research and insert actual attorney name], lead counsel for the defense. “Our clients were exercising their constitutional rights and did not intentionally cause significant damage.”

Students involved in the protests have maintained their innocence, claiming any damage was unintentional or caused by individuals not affiliated with the organized demonstration. Many have expressed solidarity with the accused and criticized the university’s response as overly harsh. The Stanford SJP chapter released a statement condemning the charges and vowing to continue advocating for Palestinian rights.

University Response and Disciplinary Procedures

Stanford University officials have condemned the vandalism but affirmed their commitment to protecting free speech. The university is conducting its own internal inquiry, separate from the criminal proceedings.

* University Statement: “Stanford supports the right to peaceful protest, but vandalism and destruction of property will not be tolerated,” a university spokesperson stated.

* Student Conduct Code: Students found responsible for vandalism through the university’s disciplinary process could face sanctions ranging from warnings to suspension or expulsion.

* Due Process: The university assures students facing disciplinary action will be afforded due process, including the opportunity to present evidence and appeal any decisions.

Broader Context: Campus Protests and Free Speech

This incident at Stanford is part of a larger national trend of heightened activism and protests on college campuses related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Similar demonstrations and related arrests have been reported at universities including[List2-3otherUniversities-[List2-3otherUniversities-research and insert actual universities].

The cases raise significant questions about the balance between free speech rights, campus security, and the protection of property. Legal experts are closely watching the Stanford case, as it could set a precedent for how universities respond to similar incidents in the future. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is monitoring the situation and offering legal resources to students.

Potential Outcomes and Next Steps

The next court date is scheduled for[DateofNextcourtDate-[DateofNextcourtDate-research and insert actual date]. At that time, the prosecution and defense will likely discuss evidence and potentially negotiate a plea bargain. Possible outcomes include:

1. Plea Bargain: Students could plead guilty to lesser