STANFORD, CA— After nine months of legal uncertainty, the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office has announced it will not pursue charges against award-winning journalist Dilan Gohill, a Stanford Daily reporter who was arrested while covering a pro-Palestinian protest on Stanford’s campus. The decision, which comes nearly a year after Gohill’s wrongful arrest, has reignited concerns over press freedom, wrongful prosecution, and university complicity in suppressing student journalism.
“No journalist should ever have to endure a nine-month-long threat to their academic, social, and professional future for simply doing their job,” Gohill said following the DA’s announcement. “The University, their Department of Public Safety, and the elected District Attorney all allowed the possibility of multiple felonies to hang over my head.”
Gohill, a 19-year-old journalist, was covering a protest when he was arrested and later accused of felony burglary, vandalism, and conspiracy—despite publicly available evidence that he was present as a reporter, not a participant. The decision to clear him of all charges, while celebrated, comes after prolonged damage to his academic and professional career.
On the night of his arrest, Gohill was covering an on-campus protest for the Stanford Daily. Dispatches from the time show that he was reporting live from inside the building, documenting the protest as it unfolded. According to multiple sources, when law enforcement regained entry to the occupied space, protesters affirmed that Gohill was a journalist and not part of the demonstration.
“Not one of us, he’s press,” one protester told law enforcement, according to a recording heard by Gohill’s editors over speakerphone.
Despite this, Gohill was arrested and detained for 15 hours. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Deputies allegedly attempted to access his phone by holding it up to his face in an effort to unlock it via Face ID. Gohill deliberately looked away, preventing authorities from gaining access to his device without his consent.
Nick Rowley, a nationally acclaimed trial attorney representing Gohill, condemned the arrest and its long-term implications.
“Dilan was subjected to wrongful arrest and baseless allegations for simply doing his job: reporting the truth,” Rowley said. “The fact that it took this long to clear his name is a stain on Stanford University and the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office.”
Gohill’s legal troubles were not only the result of law enforcement overreach but also university leadership’s complicity in treating student journalists as criminals.
Despite knowing that Gohill was reporting for the Stanford Daily, former Stanford University President Richard Saller and Provost Jenny Martinez publicly supported his prosecution. In a statement at the time, they claimed that the university “fully support(s) having [Dilan] be criminally prosecuted.”
The Stanford University Department of Public Safety (DPS) also played a critical role in Gohill’s prolonged ordeal. Even after his name was cleared, Stanford DPS has refused to return his personal and professional property, including: his laptop, iPhone, Stanford Daily-issued camera and class notebooks and lecture materials
Because of this, Gohill was forced to take two courses as “Incomplete” and had to write two final papers without access to his notes or laptop.
Attorney Max Szabo, who also represented Gohill, sharply criticized Stanford’s handling of the situation.
“This case was not a close call,” Szabo said. “Stanford Department of Public Safety’s months-long delay in turning over this investigation to prosecutors should be viewed as suspicious, incompetent, or both.”
The university’s handling of the incident sparked significant backlash from students, faculty, and press freedom organizations. The First Amendment Coalition and the Student Press Law Center both demanded that Stanford and the Santa Clara District Attorney drop the case. Additionally, Stanford’s Undergraduate Senate (UGS) and Graduate Student Council (GSC) unanimously passed a resolution calling for the DA to decline prosecution.
At the heart of the case was the question of whether Gohill’s presence at the protest constituted criminal activity or was protected as part of his duties as a journalist.
Publicly available photos show that: protesters wore all black, covered their faces with sunglasses and balaclavas, but Gohill was wearing a red Stanford Daily jacket and media credentials.
Yet, despite clear distinctions between protesters and journalists, Gohill was charged with felony-level offenses that could have dramatically impacted his future.
Rowley and his legal team consistently maintained that Gohill was wrongfully arrested and overcharged. The DA’s delayed decision to drop the charges, they argued, only highlights the dangers of treating journalists as criminals.
“While we celebrate this positive outcome, we cannot forget the lasting impact that such misplaced legal action has on press freedom and the rights of student journalists,” Rowley said.
While Gohill is now cleared, his case serves as a cautionary tale for student journalists nationwide.
Press freedom advocates warn that cases like this create a chilling effect—where young reporters may hesitate to cover protests or controversial issues out of fear of being targeted, arrested, or prosecuted.
Gohill himself acknowledged this in his statement, noting the dangerous precedent set by his arrest.
“Their actions had a chilling effect on a free press, and even though their decision took far too long, I’m glad they finally realized that journalism is not a crime,” Gohill said. “Our democracy depends on an independent press to hold power accountable and to document history as it happens.”
Despite finally being cleared, Gohill is still fighting to have his property returned and to ensure that similar injustices do not happen to other journalists.
With Gohill’s arraignment canceled and all charges dropped, the case may be legally over—but the broader fight to protect press freedom, student journalists, and constitutional rights continues.
Gohill’s attorneys, alongside press freedom organizations, are now demanding Stanford return his property and publicly acknowledge the harm caused by their mishandling of the case.
Meanwhile, advocates are calling for stronger legal protections to prevent journalists—especially student reporters—from being unfairly targeted when covering protests.
As Gohill’s case shows, the threat to a free press doesn’t just come from government censorship—it can also come from wrongful arrests, prosecutorial overreach, and institutions willing to turn their backs on their own student journalists.
“I’m glad they finally realized that journalism is not a crime”
Of course it’s not. Isn’t this like the BS term “criminalizing homelessness”. None of us as asking to criminalize homelessness, we are asking the homeless criminals be treated as criminals. Same with criminal journalists.
“a 19-year-old journalist, was covering a protest when he was arrested and later accused of felony burglary, vandalism, and conspiracy—”
The issue is whether he committed the crimes.
“despite publicly available evidence that he was present as a reporter, not a participant.”
It doesn’t matter what he was there as, it matters whether he committed the crimes he was accused of. The language throughout this article is squishy at best.