Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Hanley Chew has denied a motion from the District Attorney’s Office to prohibit defense attorneys from using the term “genocide” during the felony vandalism trial of five pro-Palestinian demonstrators at Stanford University. This ruling, issued on October 3, 2023, allows the term to be discussed in court, although Judge Chew cautioned the defense to use it judiciously due to its powerful political implications.
In a related decision, Judge Chew also rejected a motion to exclude political motivations from the defense’s arguments. Although he affirmed the right to discuss motivations, he emphasized that such discussions would be “severely limited” under evidentiary rules. “I will deny the prosecution’s motion,” Chew stated. “However, if I feel that parties are exploiting that word, I’ll sustain an objection and exclude its further use. I will give a limiting instruction to the jury.”
The five defendants—German Gonzalez, Maya Burke, Taylor McCann, Hunter Taylor Black, and Amy Zhai—are accused of damaging Stanford’s executive offices during a demonstration in June 2024 that called for the university to divest from companies linked to Israel. If convicted, they could face up to three years in prison. The remaining eight individuals arrested during the protest either accepted plea agreements or were admitted into diversion programs.
Supporters of the defendants filled the courtroom, many wearing traditional kaffiyehs as a show of solidarity with both the Stanford protesters and the Palestinian cause. Judge Chew had to admonish audience members for disruptions during proceedings but noted that there were no repeated incidents. After the hearing, demonstrators gathered outside the courthouse, chanting in support of Palestinians, marking the anniversary of intensified military operations in Gaza that have resulted in significant casualties.
Deputy District Attorney Rob Baker expressed concern that allowing the term “genocide” and political motivations could lead to hearsay and speculation during the trial. “I’m asking the court to exclude testimony and argument that characterizes Israel’s actions as genocide,” Baker asserted. He argued that unless the defendants had personally observed Israel’s intentions, such claims would be irrelevant.
Defense attorney Leah Gillis countered that the term is essential for conveying the defendants’ beliefs and does not inherently prejudice the case. “Israel isn’t a witness, a victim, or the district attorney in this case,” she remarked. “Using the word ‘genocide’ describes what our clients believed and acted upon. The court’s job isn’t to decide Israel’s actions; it’s to determine whether we can argue what our clients believed at the time of the alleged crime.”
Public defender Avanindar Singh, representing Gonzalez, emphasized that understanding the defendants’ motivations is critical to establishing intent, a key element of the vandalism charges. Judge Chew acknowledged this point but reiterated the need for strict limits on the evidence presented. “I think defendants do have a right to speak about motivations and actions,” he noted, “but testimony must avoid non-relevant and hearsay evidence.”
Earlier in the session, the judge also ruled against a prosecution motion aimed at excluding political context from the defense strategy. Baker had expressed concern that the defense could introduce irrelevant hearsay from social media or news sources. Singh argued against this, stating that the defendants’ motivations are significant to their case.
In the midst of these proceedings, Tony Brass, representing Taylor Black, noted that the prosecution seems intent on focusing solely on the alleged vandalism rather than the broader context of the protesters’ actions. “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,” Brass said.
Several other motions regarding evidence and discovery were postponed for future hearings. Jury selection for this high-profile case is anticipated to begin in January 2026, as the legal proceedings continue to unfold against the backdrop of a complex political landscape.
