Jury Deadlocks on Felony Conspiracy Charge in April 2024 Protest Case
A San Francisco jury has convicted seven protesters of misdemeanor charges after they blocked traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge during a 2024 anti-war demonstration. The case has become a significant point of contention regarding governmental and institutional responses to pro-Palestinian protests during the Trump era.
The jury deliberated for seven days but was unable to reach a verdict on the most serious allegation: felony conspiracy. A conviction on this charge could have resulted in a sentence of up to 15 years in prison for the defendants. Additionally, the jury failed to reach a verdict on a misdemeanor trespassing charge. It remains uncertain whether a retrial will be pursued for these unresolved charges.
Despite the deadlocks, each of the seven protesters was found guilty of six misdemeanor offenses, including false imprisonment and obstruction of thoroughfare. One defendant, Sara Cantor, was convicted of an additional misdemeanor for refusing to disperse.
The sentencing for the protesters is scheduled for August 21. Six defendants face a maximum sentence of five years in county jail, while Cantor faces up to five and a half years.
“Today remains a victory,” public defender Nuha Abusamra, representing one of the defendants, stated after the verdict. “We do not fight solely to win. We fight for the resistance.”
Trial Proceedings and Arguments
The trial was held in a San Francisco superior court, where jurors heard contrasting narratives about the April 2024 demonstration. Assistant District Attorney Angela Roze contended that the protest blocked traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge for over four hours, trapping motorists. She argued this act constituted a conspiracy and false imprisonment.
The seven co-defendants faced charges including felony conspiracy and misdemeanors for false imprisonment, unlawful assembly, obstructing a roadway, and trespassing.
“The demonstration on the Golden Gate Bridge caused a level of safety risk, including extreme threats to the health and welfare of those trapped, that we as a society cannot ignore or allow,” said San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins in 2024 when charges were filed four months after the incident.
Defense attorneys argued that the protesters were motivated by a moral obligation to halt genocide and to protest Israeli strikes on Gaza. They emphasized that the bridge blockade was part of a nationwide tax day protest aimed at US financial and military aid to Israel. The defendants asserted that they resorted to this form of protest only after traditional methods, such as contacting congressional representatives and writing letters, failed to produce results.
Background and Legal Context
The incident, known as the “Golden Gate 26” due to the number of protesters arrested, initially involved 26 individuals. Charges against 19 of those arrested were later dropped or deferred, meaning prosecution was postponed and could be dismissed if certain conditions, like probation, were met.
Rachel Lederman, a senior attorney with the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, a civil rights legal organization supporting the defendants, expressed strong criticism of the prosecution’s decision to maintain felony charges against the seven remaining defendants.
“I was flabbergasted that prosecutors did not reduce the most serious felony charges to misdemeanors after dismissing charges against 19 of the original co-defendants,” Lederman said at the trial’s start. “It’s just outrageous and unprecedented that these seven people are continuing to be prosecuted for felony conspiracy for doing a fairly routine – for the Bay Area – civil disobedience action.”
The Golden Gate Bridge transit authority took the unusual step of demanding restitution for lost toll revenue resulting from the shutdown. Critics of the prosecution noted that the authority had never before sought restitution for a protest that blocked traffic on the bridge, viewing this as further evidence of targeting protesters for their pro-Palestinian stance.
The San Francisco public defender’s office, representing two defendants, publicly criticized District Attorney Jenkins’ office for pursuing restitution claims related to the protest.
These restitution claims were settled prior to trial, with individual defendants paying sums in the three- to low-four-figure range.
Historical Context of Protests on the Golden Gate Bridge
Since the late 1980s, the 4,200-foot-long Golden Gate Bridge, which connects northern San Francisco and Marin County, has been the site of numerous protests. Causes represented have included the AIDS epidemic, environmental issues, and the Black Lives Matter movement.
