Jury Deadlocked in Trial of Stanford Students After Pro-Palestinian Protest

Judge declares mistrial in case of 5 students charged with vandalism and trespassing during 2024 campus demonstration

Published on Feb. 14, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A judge has declared a mistrial in the case of five current and former Stanford University students charged with felony vandalism and conspiracy to trespass after a pro-Palestinian protest in 2024. The jury was deadlocked, with an 8-4 vote to convict on the vandalism charge and a 9-3 vote to convict on the trespassing charge.

Why it matters

The trial was a rare instance of demonstrators facing felony charges stemming from the wave of campus protests that occurred in 2024. The outcome highlights the ongoing tensions between free speech rights and property damage during political protests on college campuses.

The details

Prosecutors said the demonstrators broke furniture and splattered a red liquid described as fake blood on items throughout the university president and provost's executive offices after barricading themselves inside. Defense lawyers argued the protest was protected speech and there was no intent to damage property.

  • The pro-Palestinian protest took place in 2024.
  • The trial began in early 2026.

The players

Stanford University

A prestigious private research university located in Palo Alto, California.

Judge Hanley Chew

The judge who declared a mistrial in the case.

Santa Clara County prosecutors

The prosecutors who brought charges against the Stanford students.

Defense lawyers

The lawyers representing the Stanford students charged in the case.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“It appears that this jury is hopelessly deadlocked and I'm now declaring a mistrial in counts one and two.”

— Judge Hanley Chew, Judge

What’s next

The case may be retried by prosecutors, but the judge's declaration of a mistrial means the students will not be immediately convicted or sentenced.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing tensions between free speech rights and property damage during political protests on college campuses, and the challenges prosecutors face in securing convictions against student demonstrators.