Prosecutors Drop Case Against Stanford Student Journalist

Sign up for The Media Today, CJR’s daily newsletter.

Prosecutors in California said Thursday that they are not going to pursue a criminal case against Dilan Gohill, the Stanford student journalist who was arrested while covering a pro-Palestinian campus protest and occupation of the university president’s office last June.

Gohill had faced allegations of burglary, vandalism, and conspiracy—all felonies. He was never formally charged, even though Stanford’s provost and then-president had publicly urged the Santa Clara County district attorney to prosecute the teenager. The case raised concerns among press and civil liberties groups about how authorities should handle a journalist who is caught up in a lawbreaking event.

“This Office supports a free press and recognizes that the law gives reporters latitude to do their jobs in keeping the public informed,” District Attorney Jeff Rosen stated. “We have no evidence that this student did anything other than cover this event as a journalist.”

The office added that it is still “completing its review of the conduct” of the twelve protesters who were also arrested and faced similar allegations. During the incident, protesters inside the building broke doorframes and furniture, while those outside spray-painted the sandstone walls of the university’s historic Main Quad with slogans like “DE@TH 2 ISR@HELL” and “PIGS TASTE BEST DEAD.” The university estimated the cost to repair the damage at more than $700,000, prosecutors said.

Gohill, now a sophomore, got confirmation of the decision Thursday as he was exiting a class, “The World and America.” “No journalist should ever have to endure a nine-month-long threat to their academic, social, and professional future for simply doing their job,” he said. The university and prosecutors “all allowed the possibility of multiple felonies to hang over my head.… I’m glad they finally realized that journalism is not a crime.”  

Max Szabo, an attorney and spokesman for Gohill, was likewise both relieved by the decision and unhappy about the time it took to resolve. “This case was not a close call,” he said. “Mr. Gohill has lived under threat of these charges for a full nine months since the incident was captured on camera.” He was especially critical of the university’s Department of Public Safety, which he said waited too long before turning its investigation over to prosecutors—something he said “should be viewed as suspicious, incompetent, or both.”

When reached for comment, a spokesperson for Stanford said that “it was the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office that needed to determine how to proceed with this case based on the evidence assembled, and we respect their decision in this matter.”

The decision comes nine months after Gohill, then nineteen and a freshman reporter for the Stanford Daily, was handcuffed and jailed while covering the predawn break-in and occupation of Building 10, where the Stanford president’s office is located. A story about his arrest and the journalistic issues surrounding it appeared in CJR last December.

By most accounts—including contemporaneous Slack messages as well as interviews with protesters and Daily staffers—Gohill was there to report on the demonstration, not to participate in it. He had been covering campus protests for months, was in touch with his newsroom colleagues when he heard about the protest the night before, and, that morning, was wearing a Stanford Daily sweatshirt and press badge. While he was in the building, he sent live feeds and photographs to his editors on the outside.  

But when sheriff’s deputies arrived a few hours after the occupation began, they arrested everyone, including Gohill. That surprised his editors, who thought his press credentials would protect him. It also surprised protesters, who didn’t see him as being part of their movement. “Dilan’s not with us!” they told officers, according to Gohill and another witness.

Gohill spent the next twelve hours in jail, until his mother mustered the money to cover his $20,000 bail. 

University officials soon allowed Gohill to return to campus—the protesters were suspended for longer periods—but they also urged prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against him. “We believe that the Daily reporter who was arrested inside the building acted in violation of the law and University policies and fully support having him be criminally prosecuted,” read a June 7 letter from provost Jenny Martinez—a former Stanford Law dean—and then-president Richard Saller. They stated that they did not think Gohill’s rights as a reporter “have been violated in this instance.”

Press groups and alumni—including some who used to work at the Daily—pushed back. Shortly after the arrest, twenty-four organizations, ranging from the ACLU of Northern California to the National Press Photographers Association, sent prosecutors a letter stating that Gohill was “a journalist reporting on breaking news” who “lacked the requisite intent for the crimes he is accused of committing.”

Even as the case languished for months, Stanford wanted prosecutors to pursue it. When CJR asked in late November about Gohill’s criminal liability, spokeswoman Luisa Rapport responded that “the university’s position has not changed and remains the same as stated in the [June] letter.”

But the university would, in fact, soon alter its stance. In a mid-December interview with the Daily, ten days after the CJR story was published, Stanford’s new president backed off from his predecessor’s aggressive tack. Asked if Gohill should be prosecuted, Jonathan Levin responded, “The university doesn’t have a position on that.” And the next month, Stanford officials dropped the internal disciplinary case against Gohill altogether. 

“We looked at the evidence regarding this particular student and his behavior…and we decided that we do not have evidence that he should be criminally charged,” Sean Webby, communications director for the district attorney, told CJR on Thursday. “We were looking to see if he was acting as a protester or as a journalist. The evidence that we had was that he was acting as a journalist.”

Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.

Tags: Student Journalism