Yolo Judge Upholds Felony Conspiracy Charges on UC Davis Palestinian Protestors Despite Defense Arguing ‘Speculation’ and ‘Guesswork’

Woodland, CA – Judge Clara Levers on Monday upheld a grand jury indictment for three UC Davis students, accused of vandalism on the UC Davis campus during protests over the genocide by Israel of Palestine.  These defendants specifically are believed to have vandalized the Ying and Yang Installation of two “Egghead” sculptures on the campus.

While both the DA and co-defendants agree that these defendants are personally responsible for less than $400 of damage to those specific sculptures, the DA is alleging a larger conspiracy to commit vandalism as well as a felony conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor.

On Monday, Judge Levers held a 995 hearing, where the defense attempted to reduce Count 1 to a misdemeanor, alleging that the prosecution was engaging in sheer speculation without evidence to sustain a conspiracy.

Deputy Public Defender Danielle Craig filed the written motion under Penal Code section 995 and was joined by co-counsel representing the co-defendants in the case.

The charges stem from multiple incidents of vandalism that occurred on campus the night of May 24, 2024.  At the time, there was a political protest encampment that had been built on UC Davis’s campus in support of Palestinian people and critical of Israel’s genocide.

“It is an unbelievable stretch to make an argument that these three individuals were in any way, shape or form tied to linked encouraging of promoting or instigating any other acts on that campus,” Craig argued during oral arguments.

She continued, “There was and still is an ongoing political protest of acts that are occurring in the Middle East, that to make an allegation that an individual is promoting other unrelated acts simply by the same political beliefs is a stretch too far.”

The Yolo County DA’s Office “has been attempting to prosecute this case to the fullest.”

They chose to go the Grand Jury route instead of a traditional preliminary hearing, which Craig said “deprives defense counsel of making a motion pursuant to 17b for these three kids who have no criminal history for the charges to be reduced (to a misdemeanor).”

Danielle Craig went so far as to note that they have been told that head DA Jeff Reisig “has vetoed a RJP or diversion offer for these three individuals despites three individuals coming before the court with no criminal history whatsoever.”

She argued, “It is abundantly clear to defense that the government is trying to prosecute this to the fullest extent, but there is still a legal deadline.”

Craig argued that the Grand Jury specifically found the individuals not to be the ones who committed other acts of vandalism on campus.

“I’m asking the court not to hold them to answer to Count 1,” she said, which she believed should be a misdemeanor not a felony.

Deputy DA Jesse Richardson said, “I will start by acknowledging that I agree with Ms. Craig that there isn’t a dispute as to, as far as the vandalism, that any evidence was presented to the grand jury that these three defendants were directly involved in.”

He said, “The testimony was pretty clear that was under $400.”

The court therefore would have to rely on one of the alternative theories of liability in order to basically uphold the jury’s decision to indict on Count 1.

Richardson, however, also pointed out that the standard to hold someone to answer on a charge is probable cause, and here he noted the evidence that the defendants were seen on video spray painting the sculpture, that they fled the scene and dropped the can, they had caps and empty spray paint cans, they were found with paint on their body other than black and one of them was clearly acting as the lookout.

He argued, “So there’s, one, a motive for doing this particular crime, but also then it is still reflected in all of the other vandalism that’s occurring around the campus on the same morning using all of the same means.”

He pointed out that while they don’t know the other individuals involved, you have three or four other groups who “were on campus at the same time doing the same exact vandalism.”

He said, “So the question is, is it reasonable to believe that these three defendants were doing the same exact vandalism at the same time as up to four other groups of people with absolutely no knowledge and no cooperation together and that this was just a complete, just chance, that they all happened to be using the same materials, the same tools and the same messaging all at the same exact time?”

He argued that’s not a reasonable belief.

For Danielle Craig, however, this amounted to guesswork and speculation.

She cited other cases where the court has ruled that “the court can’t derive any meaning and has to determine as unreasonable anything that comes from speculation or guesswork.”

She said, “That’s what Mr. Richardson is asking this court to do, and that’s what the grand jury relied on…”

She added, “It takes this court and turns it into a political witch hunt.”

Richardson pushed back on this notion, arguing, “I do feel compelled to say that my involvement in this case is not one to be a political witch hunt. It’s simply that the California law has natural and probable consequences doctrine, and I’m not here to again say that anything that these defendants as far as their political points is wrong or incorrect.”

Co-Counsel James Granucci added, “Mr. Richardson used the “if” word five or six times—if this was a conspiracy, if this was aiding and abetting—and I disagree on the natural probable consequence that’s been whittled away of course, where in the homicide statute now to try to get a bootstrap, a holding order on a natural probable consequence theory of this case is ridiculous.”

He added, “There has to be evidence.”

Judge Levers, however, squarely ruled in favor of the prosecution here, noting the evidence of pre-planning, purchasing of material, dress for anonymity, wearing of similar colored clothing, spray paint cans that were emptied, differing colors.

In conclusion she said “the motion pursuant to 995 is denied.”

The case will return to Department 9 on January 8 at 9 am.

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Breaking News Court Watch Everyday Injustice Yolo County

Tags:

8 comments

  1. I for one don’t have a problem with this. Demonstrators causing damage need to be held accountable for their acts. The antisemitism on the UC Davis campus is out of control as demonstrated by the recent report that ranks UCD as one of the most antisemitic colleges in the country.

    1. It doesn’t bother you that they are reaching out to the thinnest reed in order to exact a pound of flesh here. You really want to ruin a kid’s life by putting a felony on them over a protest?

      1. “It doesn’t bother you that they are reaching out to the thinnest reed in order to exact a pound of flesh here. You really want to ruin a kid’s life by putting a felony on them over a protest?”

        I’m not the one making the decision to charge them. It came down to a prosecutor, and Grand Jury and ultimately the judge who ruled:

        “Judge Levers, however, squarely ruled in favor of the prosecution here, noting the evidence of pre-planning, purchasing of material, dress for anonymity, wearing of similar colored clothing, spray paint cans that were emptied, differing colors.”

        If there’s nothing there and no proof it will come out in a trial.

        1. “I’m not the one making the decision to charge them. It came down to a prosecutor, and Grand Jury and ultimately the judge who ruled:”

          No, you’re the one defending it.

          1. The judge, the Grand Jury and the prosecutor all felt there is something there.

            The defense attorney feels differently, that’s their job.

          2. Remember the Grand Jury only gets the DA’s side of the story, that’s the significance of the DA’s *decision* to go the GJ route rather than have a traditional preliminary hearing where the defense is present and can make counter arguments to a judge.

            The judge doesn’t win any awards for profiles in courage, but as she pointed out, “a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment as to the weight of the evidence for the grand jury.” Her hands are bound. She is basically Orwell forced to shoot the elephant in this scenario.

  2. Anti-Semitism is out of control locally. I’ve personally seen anti-semitic graffiti around town. Not just pro-Palestinian graffiti. You recently had an article about a group that ranked UCD as one of top 25 Anti-Semitic campuses nationally. This is not acceptable and I’m glad that Yolo County is taking a stand that UCD seems unable to limit.

Leave a Comment