Santa Clara County Superior Court docket Decide Hanley Chew on Tuesday denied a movement by the District Legal professional’s Workplace searching for to bar protection attorneys from referencing “genocide” within the felony vandalism trial of 5 pro-Palestinian demonstrators at Stanford College.
In a associated determination earlier Tuesday, Chew additionally denied a movement to exclude political motivations from being argued by the protection, however mentioned any dialogue can be “severely limited” underneath evidentiary guidelines.
“What I’m going to rule is this: I will deny the prosecution’s motion. However, I would ask defense counsel to be very judicious with the use of the word ‘genocide,’ because, as all of you pointed out, the word is very powerful and politically charged. If I feel that parties are exploiting that word, I’ll sustain an objection and exclude its further use. In addition, I will give a limiting instruction to the jury,” Chew mentioned.
Accused of damaging Stanford’s government places of work throughout a June 2024 demonstration calling on the college to divest from Israel-linked corporations, 5 defendants stay of the 13 initially arrested. The 5 – German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor Black and Amy Zhai – withstand three years in jail if convicted.
The others arrested accepted plea agreements or have been admitted into diversion packages. District Legal professional Jeff Rosen declined to cost a pupil journalist who was arrested whereas overlaying the occasion.
Supporters stuffed the courtroom gallery Tuesday morning, many carrying kaffiyehs in solidarity with the Stanford protesters and Palestinians in Gaza. Chew admonished a number of viewers members for disruptions throughout arguments, although no repeated incidents occurred. After the listening to, supporters gathered peacefully exterior and chanted in help of Palestinians, marking three years since intensified army operations in Gaza left tens of hundreds useless.
Deputy District Legal professional Rob Baker argued that permitting testimony about genocide and political motivations might invite rumour and hypothesis.
“I’m asking the court to exclude testimony and argument that characterizes Israel’s actions as genocide,” Baker mentioned. “Unless defendants personally observed Israel’s intent, it’s irrelevant. Any argument otherwise is based on inadmissible evidence.”
Protection legal professional Leah Gillis countered that the time period displays the defendants’ perspective and isn’t prejudicial.
“Israel isn’t a witness, a victim, or the district attorney in this case,” she mentioned. “Using the word ‘genocide’ is describing what our clients believed and acted on. The court’s job isn’t to decide Israel’s actions; it’s to decide whether we can argue what our clients believed at the time of the alleged crime.”
Public defender Avanindar Singh, representing Gonzalez, mentioned the defendants’ motivations are central to questions of intent — a key aspect of the vandalism expenses.
Chew agreed however burdened slim limits.
Earlier within the morning, Chew additionally dominated towards a prosecution movement searching for to exclude political context from the protection technique.
Singh responded: “Motivations of defendants in connection with the sit-in are significant factors with intent. Their reasons are relevant and should not be excluded. We don’t believe this motion should be granted.”
Chew mentioned when he dominated on these motions: “I think defendants do have a right to testify to speak about motivations and actions. But when they are testifying, I would limit rules of evidence so that non-relevant and hearsay evidence would not be testified to. I’m going to deny the motion, with the understanding that testimony will be severely limited. They will have a right in a limited fashion.”
“By their actions and words, what they want is a clean vandalism trial, as though these people simply decided to vandalize a building,” Brass mentioned. “The question is whether they vandalized it, without allowing the defense to tell the human story behind why they did it — what brought them there and their sense of urgency.”
A number of different motions on proof and discovery have been deferred for future hearings. Jury choice is predicted to start January 2026.
