WOODLAND, CA – The Yolo County District Attorney’s Office is continuing to press felony charges against three UC Davis students in the so-called Egghead case, despite signals that the Shrem Museum—the victim of the vandalism—would be open to restorative justice.
In a hearing Wednesday before Judge Sonia Cortés, Deputy Public Defender Danielle Craig told the court that new information provided by Deputy District Attorney Jesse Richardson indicated that the museum “is very open to a sort of conflict resolution, diversion kind of engagement.”
Craig said her team has made a discovery request and may renew a motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 1385 once more details are shared. She asked that the matter be continued for four weeks, adding that the court had previously indicated it might consider an open misdemeanor plea.
Judge Cortés scheduled the next hearing for Oct. 14.
Richardson agreed to provide the information but made clear the prosecution’s stance.
“It’s the People’s position that if there’s no resolution or anything today that we should be setting trial dates,” he said. Richardson acknowledged that the museum’s willingness to consider restorative justice could prompt another dismissal motion but said, “The People’s position is that…we don’t believe [dismissal] is appropriate. We would oppose any sort of dismissal under 1385.”
He also said he would oppose a plea to the sheet, where the accused admit to the charges and then ask the judge to reduce them to misdemeanors.
The case stems from a May 2024 pro-Palestinian protest on campus during which one of the Egghead sculptures was spray-painted. Defense attorneys have argued the incident amounted to misdemeanor vandalism and political expression, not a felony conspiracy. The sculpture was cleaned by UC Davis staff in less than two hours, with the cost reported at under $400.
In July, Judge Cortés denied an earlier Penal Code section 1385 motion to dismiss.
At that hearing, Craig called the case “by far an unusual case in an unusual motion,” explaining that the request was “not really even a motion at all. It’s an invitation to the court.” She grounded her argument in the broader context of the war in Gaza and the nationwide wave of campus activism that followed.
“As of May 4 of this year, the UN Human Rights Watch has cited that there have been over 52,000 deaths in Gaza, and that about 70 percent continue to be women and children,” Craig told the court. She said Israel had blockaded food and medical supplies, and international bodies had labeled the campaign a genocide.
Craig, who is Jewish, emphasized that her personal convictions informed her advocacy.
“One of the greatest PR stunts in recent history has been equating antisemitism with anti-Zionism,” she said. “That’s a false equivalency. I believe standing up to injustice is part of my duty.”
She argued that her clients were being overcharged.
“These individuals are being accused of spray-painting an art installation on campus that cost less than $400 to clean. UC Davis staff cleaned the sculpture in under two hours,” she said. By contrast, other vandalism that night caused thousands in damage, but, she stressed, “There is no evidence before the court that the accused had anything to do with those other incidents.”
Perhaps most striking was the defense’s focus on police conduct. Craig introduced body-camera footage showing a UC Davis police officer firing a round at one of the students during the arrest.
“What the court just watched is a 20-year-old junior at UC Davis being hunted down and shot at by campus police,” Craig told the judge. “This was not a dangerous felony. This was alleged spray-painting. And she was shot at for that.”
Craig contended the prosecution was political, aimed at “criminalizing dissent.” She said the students had already endured significant consequences, including public vilification, and had no prior criminal history. “They’ve appeared at every court date,” she said, calling the felony charges disproportionate.
Despite those arguments, Judge Cortés declined to dismiss the case in July, though she noted the unusual circumstances. With the Shrem Museum now signaling openness to restorative approaches, the defense plans to revisit the issue in October.
For now, the DA’s office remains firm. Richardson reiterated that if the court entertains dismissal, “whatever happens if it’s either of those two things we will come with objections.” Judge Cortés acknowledged that the new information came directly from the victim under Marsy’s Law and had not been available previously.
The three protesters remain out of custody as the case moves forward. The next hearing is set for Oct. 14, when the court may decide whether to allow restorative justice to play a role or proceed toward trial.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
