The legal case involving the nine protestors arrested for trespassing following May’s pro-Palestine encampment on Trotter Lawn is proceeding to the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. The protestors, including two Swarthmore-affiliated individuals, had a preliminary hearing in July, followed by a formal arraignment in August.
Magisterial District Judge Elizabeth Gallard charged them with defiant trespass, a third-degree misdemeanor outlined by PA law 3503(b). Evidence that the defendants were more likely than not guilty of trespassing was considered prima facie, so the case will go to trial.
The trial date is currently set for March, with a continued hearing in June. Assistant District Attorney Hannah Pruitt is prosecuting. The Swarthmore-affiliated individuals received a no-negative-contact order, requiring they pursue no harmful actions toward the college. The remaining defendants have a stay-away order.
The protestors participated in the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) encampment, which lasted for four days. During this time, the college repeatedly warned the protestors through written and verbal notices that if they did not leave, they might be arrested. While some protestors, mostly Swarthmore students, left, others from outside the college arrived. At the time of the arrests, there were two Swarthmore-affiliated individuals and seven unaffiliated with the college.
Charged are Andrew R. Gilbert, 19, Gibsonia, PA; Jace Mirghani Boland, 19, Middletown, DE; Brendan D. Cook, 23, Dover, DE.; and Riley J. McManus, 23; Colin Buckley Malcarney, 24; Thomas J. Falcone, 29; Mara Helen Cahill, 29; Jonathan Britt, 25; and Daria C. Dressler, 29, all from Philadelphia.
In an interview with The Phoenix, Defense Attorney Marni Jo Snyder, who represents eight of the nine defendants, says the college’s delayed decision undermines the justification for the arrests and threatens free speech.
At the same time as the encampment, the college was in communication with the FBI for an ongoing cyber attack against the college. During these communications, the FBI warned the college’s administration that the social media attention the encampment had attracted had caught its eye.
The FBI urged the college administration to end the encampment, noting that unaffiliated individuals were joining the protest on campus. Swarthmore President Val Smith cited these safety concerns in a statement to the college after the arrests.
“We make balances as a community and as a country about our free speech and what we’re going to regulate,” Snyder remarked. “If there’s not some imminent danger or threat, then what is it that we’re doing arresting people? On balance, I think it is disturbing — upsetting — that this case is being prosecuted when there is not an imminent danger to others.”
Defense Counsel Anna Hinchman, who represents Malcarney, has not responded for comment.
At the preliminary hearing in July, two witnesses testified to their involvement in the arrests — a Public Safety officer and Sergeant Anthony Aloi from the Swarthmore Police Department. According to Snyder, the Public Safety officer testified that there was back-and-forth decision-making about the arrests.
Snyder said the Swarthmore officer witnesses couldn’t articulate any real danger posed by the encampment. “There’s a place where speculation about what could have been and what could have been dangerous is fear-mongering,” she said.
Snyder and Hinchman had a status conference with the judge assigned to the case, during which they asked for discovery — a pre-trial phase in which parties gather information — regarding the decision-making leading up to the arrests. They requested any recorded conversations between law enforcement and Swarthmore, as well as internal documentation about decision-making.
Snyder said they’ve received some emails between the administration and Swarthmore Police about coming to the encampment on the day of arrests. They are currently in an investigatory stage to find out if there is additional evidence beyond the few email exchanges.
There has been a dispute within the case over the use of force in the arrests.
A release by SJP before the hearing claimed that the officers “violently brutalized” the protestors. The email included pictures of injuries allegedly received during the arrests, where the officers used zip-ties to restrain the protestors.
In a Delco Times article, Folcroft Deputy Police Chief Chris Eiserman said during the hearing that, from what he had seen in police body cam footage, that characterization “could not be further from the truth.”
Snyder said she can’t comment on the nature of the body cam footage at this time.
SJP’s release also claimed that the nine defendants were being prosecuted in a “political trial.” To this, Delaware County District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer responded in the Delco Times article that the defendants are “being held liable for their criminal actions, not their political views.”
In response to Stollsteimer’s comment, Snyder said if this were the case, then “I think that we deserve to be shown what the process was like. They should prove that it’s not viewpoint discrimination.”
She also suggested that it would be meaningful for the prosecution to consider dropping the charges, alluding to the Trump administration’s current attacks on higher education and threats to free speech on campus.
“Frankly, I don’t think this should be prosecuted … I think we should all stand up for free speech. We keep moving in all these steps towards making this a really big deal and possibly chilling First Amendment speech.”
