- Judge Cortés cited defendants’ restitution and education as reasons for dismissal.
WOODLAND, CA – Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig sharply criticized a judge’s decision to dismiss felony vandalism and conspiracy charges against three UC Davis protesters accused of spray-painting the university’s iconic Egghead sculptures and other campus property during a 2024 protest over the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The ruling by Judge Sonia Cortés on Oct. 14, 2025, ended a high-profile case that had drawn attention throughout the Davis community and reignited debate over the intersection of protest, art, and criminal accountability.
The decision came more than a year after a Yolo County grand jury indicted the three defendants—Nathan Orr, 32, Lysandra Dasilva, 32, and Cheyenne Xiong, 22—all residents of Davis.
The indictment alleged the trio had conspired to deface multiple UC Davis landmarks, including several of the university’s famed Egghead sculptures designed by late professor and artist Robert Arneson.
UC Davis police described the vandalism as part of a coordinated campus-wide action that caused over $4,200 in damages.
UC Davis Police Department officers captured Dasilva and Xiong fleeing the scene and later referred the case to the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office with a recommendation for prosecution.
On July 19, 2024, a grand jury indicted all three on felony charges of vandalism and conspiracy, with Dasilva and Xiong also facing misdemeanor counts of resisting or obstructing a peace officer.
At the Oct. 14 hearing, Judge Cortés dismissed the indictment “in the interest of justice,” noting that the defendants had paid restitution, completed community service, and participated in educational activities reflecting an understanding of the artwork’s cultural importance.
According to court testimony, Rachel Teagle, director of UC Davis’ Manetti Shrem Museum of Art, had suggested a restorative approach to resolving the case. She proposed that the defendants pay restitution, perform community service related to public art preservation, and watch a short documentary about the history and meaning of the Egghead sculptures.
Deputy Public Defender Danielle Craig told the court that her clients fulfilled all of Teagle’s recommendations in good faith, without any promise of dismissal.
“They completed every expectation that was outlined within two weeks,” Craig said, calling the case “a powerful learning experience.”
The defendants each volunteered more than 12 hours of community service with Cool Davis, an environmental nonprofit that promotes sustainable energy practices, and the Davis Night Market, a mutual aid group combating food insecurity.
They also collectively paid $4,203.28 in restitution to cover the cost of restoring three Egghead sculptures—“Stargazer,” “Yin & Yang,” and “Hear No Evil/See No Evil”—to their original condition.
Craig said the experience was educational rather than punitive, emphasizing that the defendants had “taken full responsibility” for their actions and learned about the artworks’ cultural and historical value.
Defense attorney David Nelson echoed that sentiment, telling the court the vandalism occurred “during a time of global outrage” and that his client’s actions, while misguided, were not malicious. “They understand that their anger washed over on people who work very hard and are proud of what they do,” Nelson said.
Attorney James Granucci added that neither the UC Board of Regents nor the university administration sought prosecution. “Neither the regents nor the chancellor wanted to see this result in a conviction,” Granucci said. “They made suggestions, our clients took those suggestions to heart, and they made the victims whole.”
Craig argued that the dismissal was the only remaining path forward after the District Attorney’s Office refused to allow any form of diversion. “When prosecutorial discretion is abandoned, then we are left with other avenues,” she said. “The law provides this court with authority to dismiss a case in the interest of justice. That’s the only opportunity for justice here.”
Deputy District Attorney Jesse Richardson strongly opposed the motion, arguing that dismissal under Penal Code section 1385 was “not the correct vehicle” for ending the case. He said the ruling amounted to “an end-around around the usual process of prosecution,” which typically proceeds through trial or plea agreements.
Richardson said the acts of vandalism went beyond political protest and constituted a “coordinated event involving multiple people” across the UC Davis campus.
“It wasn’t just the Eggheads being vandalized but also large parts of the rest of the campus—windows, doors, walls, floors, all over campus where people were vandalizing with spray paint,” he said.
He also noted that the university’s maintenance and museum staff were the ones most affected, not the administration. “
“The people who actually are affected by this, it’s not so much Chancellor May as it is the people that work for the Shrem Museum and the maintenance staff at UC Davis,” Richardson said. “They’re the people who ultimately have to clean up the mess in this case, and their voices won’t be heard if a trial doesn’t happen.”
Despite those arguments, Judge Cortés said she was persuaded that a traditional prosecution would not serve any meaningful public interest. She highlighted the defendants’ restitution and their cooperation with UC Davis officials.
“The victims were in agreement that the traditional prosecution route is not what they wished to pursue,” Cortés said in court. “They have completed the community service hours, watched the educational film about the significance of the Eggheads, and paid restitution in full.”
She added that while the court did not condone the vandalism, the defendants had taken appropriate steps to make amends. “It’s important that while you may want to exercise free speech rights, you need to do it in a lawful manner,” Cortés said. “Holding a sign is appropriate. But once you move onto someone else’s property, that’s where the problem arises.”
Cortés urged the defendants to use the experience to educate others. “If you are in any groups where there may be protests, educate them about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate so there won’t be vandalism,” she said. “The court is not condoning your behavior, but you have taken steps to remedy it.”
Following the hearing, Reisig issued a statement condemning the outcome and accusing the court of exceeding its authority. “
“The judge’s decision to entirely dismiss the felony indictment of the Grand Jury was unprecedented in my experience,” Reisig said. “Judges are not generally authorized to unilaterally divert criminals indicted by the Grand Jury. We believe that Judge Cortés’ decision was improper.”
Reisig also criticized UC Davis officials for supporting a noncriminal resolution.
“The decision by the official UC Davis representative to recommend against a criminal conviction flies in the face of their original request and referral for criminal prosecution and creates a dangerous precedent for future cases of such conduct, suggesting similar criminal behavior at UC Davis will be treated with kid gloves,” he said. “This outcome is not good for public safety in our communities.”
The ruling marked a rare use of the “interest of justice” clause under California law, which allows judges to dismiss cases when prosecution would not serve the public good.
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.
“The decision by the official UC Davis representative to recommend against a criminal conviction flies in the face of their original request and referral for criminal prosecution and creates a dangerous precedent for future cases of such conduct, suggesting similar criminal behavior at UC Davis will be treated with kid gloves,” he said. “This outcome is not good for public safety in our communities.”
Reisig is 100% correct. I wonder if those who advocated for leniency would have done so if it was some conservative group who had done the damage?
You may agree with him, but he’s NOT 100 percent correct. He’s sidestepping several of the issues here including the fact that UC Davis had no idea that the DA was going to charge them with felonies, asked them not to, and only then circumvented the process. Perfect example, most of the images he sent out were not things that the defendants in this case were responsible. He’s attempting to game the system and you’re swallowing it.
“Perfect example, most of the images he sent out were not things that the defendants in this case were responsible. He’s attempting to game the system and you’re swallowing it.”
Weren’t they caught damaging the Eggheads? That was enough for the Grand Jury. And as Reisig stated: “Judges are not generally authorized to unilaterally divert criminals indicted by the Grand Jury”
She didn’t divert them, she dismissed the charges in the interest of justice.
I posed this question earlier, would you care to respond?
I wonder if those who advocated for leniency would have done so if it was some conservative group who had done the damage?
David, so no reply?
I’d like to reply if David is too busy. There was recently racist and homophobic graffiti painted on the campus of Holmes Junior High. The Principal, Jean Kennedy, made a strong statement that such conduct is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. She made clear that the police were involved and sought to empower her school community to also be intolerant of such behavior and to speak up against it rather than be intimidated by it without regard as to who the responsible party may be.
If more of our leaders emulated Principal Kennedy our community would be a better place to live.
David, you ought to publish her response, it was pitch perfect.
I would not support filing criminal charges in that case either. That doesn’t mean it’s alright, it just means there are other/ better ways to address it.
It is a simple question and should have an obvious answer.
David says:
“I would not support filing criminal charges in that case either. That doesn’t mean it’s alright, it just means there are other/ better ways to address it.”
So if a group conspired to go out at night and paint over rainbow crosswalks all over town you would be okay if no charges were filed?
Yes under the same conditions as the case above – repair/ pay for the damage and engage in some sort of education. I do not believe that criminal charges are the way to handle things that do not involve physical violence/ injury.
Read the article–the judge didn’t have discretion to divert–only the DA did. She was left with only two options and trial leading to imprisonment was too harsh. The DA screwed up here.
Grand juries are notorious for being manipulated by prosecutors to return indictments. They are hardly unbiased arbiters. (That’s why its been so surprising that the grand jury in Washington DC has refused to return indictments there for the new DA.)
UCD essentially asked the DA to use the Restorative Justice process that Reisig has been so proud to champion. (I know a volunteer deeply involved in that program and my wife has served in the community groups.) That is the perfect vehicle for addressing this issue. Imprisonment should ALWAYS be the LAST resort, not the first go to.
Excessive punishment is not a deterrent for future criminal activity. Studies repeatedly show that imprisonment is a poor deterrent. Instead, addressing the underlying motives and using restorative justice for relatively minor offenses are much more effective deterrents. For example, based on cross-state data, the three-strikes law has done nothing to reduce criminal activity.
Citing “three strikes” data in regard to protestors defacing egghead statutes is not likely applicable, nor are vague references to “motive” or “restorative justice”. Pretty sure that the “motive” here is quite different than your average “strike-out” convict.
Having said that, the solution in this case is probably adequate (as noted elsewhere on this page).
But as far as “three strikes” is concerned, anyone sent to prison for the rest of their lives is usually not committing crimes outside of prison walls, at least. Your theory regarding no resulting reduction in criminal activity is dependent upon someone “replacing” each person sent to prison (assuming recidivism if otherwise released).
In other words, a continuing “assembly line” of potential criminals, just waiting for their turn to replace the previous guy sent to prison. (Sort of like applying for an open position with an employer.)
As I predicted earlier, when you complained about the felony charges, this was resolved without a felony conviction after letting the perps twist in the wind for over a year. I’m good with the judges decision. If Israel and Hamas can exchange prisoners for hostages the people of Yolo County can move on from this case.
I also support Reisig’s efforts in the case and his indignation. He has sent a clear message that he isn’t going to put up with this kind of reckless political vandalism and I believe that is appropriate. We need more of our leaders to stand up and say we aren’t putting up with behavior that crosses the line into unprotected speech.
Only because the judge overruled the DA
I didn’t predict the mechanics but I was correct in predicting the outcome. In the end she did her job and he did his job and I am okay that justice has been served.
But they wasted a year and a lot of time on something that should have been resolved like this a year ago. Moreover, the DA may well appeal the judge’s dismissal.
A year in which a message needed to be sent that speech that crosses the line into political vandalism will not be tolerated. You posted pictures of vandalism with the caveat that the people charged didn’t do most of the pictured vandalism. I think you are missing that these photos show there was a need for deterrence.
No im disputing the need for felony charges and attempting to hold these folks accountable for the actions of others
I will be surprised if Reisig appeals. Time will tell but you would expect that Reisig wouldn’t want to piss off the appellate court asking them to reinstate the charges.
I’ll also be curious if he retaliates against Judge Cortes through filing 170.6 motions to recuse her – that’s been his modus whenever a local judge goes against him.
DG say, “the DA may well appeal the judge’s dismissal.”
Go Reisig! Shish Boom Bah!
I read this article and wanted to throw up in my mouth a little bit.
Not over ‘extracting a pound of flesh’. Because UC Davis is broken. It is not enforcing, and it knows it. And now these extremes of felony vs. community service, I’m skeptical this won’t cause directives of even less enforcement because they don’t want cases going to Reisig, and this even greater lack of enforcement will further embolden the vandals and chanters and whackers.
It could work in the “opposite” direction. In other words, it might strengthen UCD’s hand to “make a deal” with those causing damage, lest they turn it over to the DA.
And if it went to the DA at that point, there’d be no deal with UCD (or support) that the accused could point to.
Might even get some toilets scrubbed at UCD or something, as part of the deal next time. “Community service”, as it were. :-)
David says: “I would not support filing criminal charges in that case either. That doesn’t mean it’s alright, it just means there are other/ better ways to address it.”
I think I’m mostly in agreement with David regarding both of these incidents. Does this mean that I haven’t gotten rid of the last vestiges of my internal progressivism, yet? (I’m becoming worried about myself.)
:-)
David says: “I do not believe that criminal charges are the way to handle things that do not involve physical violence/ injury.”
O.K. – found a difference. (To me, it depends on the extent of the damage/theft.)
Those guys who robbed the Louvre immediately come to mind. A little different than painting some Easter Eggheads, which was not too difficult to fix (and was driven by a different motive). Motive can also matter to some degree – and not just the actual damage.
I probably agree with you on that. Robbing the Louvre is not what I had in mind.
Oh, so there’s a price tag on “I do not believe that criminal charges are the way to handle things that do not involve physical violence/ injury.”
I’m just messing with you.
“I would not support filing criminal charges in that case either. That doesn’t mean it’s alright, it just means there are other/ better ways to address it.”
First of all you don’t know all the facts in the Emerson case so it would be premature to pretend to know how it should be handled. But you seem to be confusing the roles of the people entrusted with addressing these events in our community. Principal Kennedy made a strong statement against abusive conduct exactly as she should in her role as Principal. Reisig did the same in his role as DA. I support both of them in their efforts. Judge Cortes played her part in the interest of justice. I’m fine with that too.
RG, can you submit Kennedy statement to DG so he can post it as an article tomorrow?