Should protesters engaging in acts of nonviolent civil disobedience face prison terms stretching over a decade?
This is the question before 12 selected jurors and five alternates, who heard opening statements Wednesday in the trial against seven protesters who blocked traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge in April 2024 in a pro-Palestine protest.
The San Francisco district attorney’s office has charged the seven defendants with felonies that could see six of them imprisoned for up to 14 years; for one defendant, it is 15 years. They were charged in August 2024 alongside 19 others, most of whom were facing misdemeanors and whose cases were dismissed or diverted.
But the seven on trial today, Assistant District Attorney Angela Roze made clear to the jury, were specifically involved in the physical blockade of the bridge, which brought traffic to a standstill for more than four hours on all southbound lanes coming into the city.
“This case is simple,” Roze told the jury this morning, after presenting a video from the day of the blockade that appeared to show officers on the bridge interacting with Sarah Cantor, who identified herself as the “police liaison” during the April 15, 2024, incident.
The video showed protesters blocking the road in cars and officers huddled around as Cantor communicated between the groups.
“The evidence that you see is exactly what the defendants did,” Roze continued. “There is no question that they obstructed a thoroughfare.”
“While you may agree with their cause, and it may be an important one, it does not excuse breaking the law.”
Much of the trial, which is expected to last to the end of July, will see that argument in dispute.
In 2025, the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District also sought $163,000 as restitution for lost toll revenue due to the protest, but its demand was subsequently dropped.
Attorney Shaffy Moeel was the first from the defense to speak, representing defendant Bhavika Anandpura.
Moeel’s first words to the jury were “necessary, urgent, lifesaving.” Those three words, Moeel argued, frame Anandpura’s state of mind around the protest, and will be key for the jury in establishing a legal framework around the intent of the protesters that day.
“Bhavika wasn’t there to commit a crime,” Moeel said. “She was there to prevent a crime … a crime against humanity.”
Each of the seven defense attorneys representing seven clients outlined in their opening statements a similar story on behalf of their clients: That they were devoted to the cause of ending genocide in Gaza, that they believed the United States was acting in violation of its own laws, that they had exhausted other options, and that they believed their blockade of the road that day could play a part in saving lives on the other side of the world.
Earlier this month, in pretrial hearings, the district attorney’s office moved to bar the use of the word genocide in the courtroom, which could have weakened arguments based on such contextual evidence.
But the presiding judge, Teresa Caffese, rejected that motion, saying that the word could be used in the trial so long as it pertained to the charges and evidence at hand.
Almost all attorneys emphasized that their clients had taken specific measures to effect change before the bridge protests. Many described their clients writing to their representatives and participating in legal protests before the demonstration.
“There was no legal alternative at this point,” said public defender Nuha Abusamra in her opening statement. “It was time for civil disobedience.”
In what will likely become a subject of debate in the coming weeks, Abusamra added that the protesters, including her client, River Allen, were willing to “move to make a lane,” using the bridge’s movable median boundary, for people with emergencies to get through into the city.
Cantor’s attorney Jac Lyons added that “they had a plan to let people with emergencies through,” and that “the police made the decision not to move the barrier to open up a fourth lane.”
The defense attorneys today worked to sketch psychological profiles of their clients for the jury, which will be key in their legal argument around intent.
One defendant had first-hand experience visiting Israel and Palestine in college, but felt that they hadn’t learned the whole truth from their Israeli professor. Another learned of the plight of Palestinian women in a course in college, and yet another had a close friend who was Palestinian.
Media diet played a significant role in the defense’s opening statements. In the time leading up to protester Bhavika Anandpura’s decision to take action, defense attorney Shaffy Moeel said, Anandpura had seen “images of atrocity after atrocity.”
Attorney Katy Isa said her client, Conrad DeJesus, “had no other choice but to get involved,” and that images of brutality were “coming through his feed every day, morning, noon and night.”
“The information that they were ingesting day to day was relentless,” said EmilyRose Johns, who represents Rocky Chau, another of the seven.
“What is someone like Mr. Chau supposed to do, when no one will listen, and when the news is relentless and when the suffering is relentless?”
In 1989 Stop AIDS Now Or Else (SANOE) blocked the Golden Gate Bridge demanding government action against HIV. It took CHP 30-45 min to clear the protest. They were charged with trespass and nuisance, misdemeanors, and the charges were probably dropped in favor of the first amendment or reduced to community service.
The particular cause being protested is irrelevant to the case. The only legal question here is whether the actions of the protesters were illegal. And they were.
I doubt that their cause or motive would even be taken into account at sentencing. It just doesn’t matter, legally.
Whether an action is legal or not is far from the only question. We can all agree it was illegal. The question is the severity of the crime and what level of punishment is appropriate. To me, it seems ludicrous that we are talking about whether 10 years is “enough” for this crime when even 5 years in prison for blocking traffic seems grossly disproportionate.
Mike, calling it “blocking traffic” is under-stating the problem. If I double-park my car on Mission Street then I am “blocking traffic”. I will only get a ticket because others can still get around me, take a different street, and so on.
But on GG Bridge it means trapping thousands of drivers for hours. There is no alternative route and nor can those drivers reverse out. Moreover that was clearly the intent.
Hence the false imprisonment charges, which do of course carry much heavier sentences. Nobody’s personal political preferences should involve kidnapping others.
What kind of delusions does one have to suffer from in order to believe that blocking traffic on the Golden gate Bridge would actually have an impact on the war in Gaza? The defense attorneys in this trial should be using the insanity defense.
It’s telling that Brooke Jenkins chose to charge these cases as she did and take them all the way through trial but refused to charge Banko Brown’s killer despite video evidence showing the murder. This prosecution makes none of us safer. Anyone with a conscience to protest against injustice will simply become a bigger target. I hope people don’t let Jenkins get away with revisionist propaganda once she actually declares her move for higher office.
A rare exception to Betteridge’s law. Yes, they deserve ten years and so much more. How many people did they hold up and for how long? 30,000 people for four hours? Well, they should get 120,000 hours of jail time – that’s 13.7 years.
When committing civil disobedience you must be ready to endure the legal consequences of what you do. That willingness to endure the consequences is what gives the act its moral resonance.
With rare exceptions, activists have lost sight of this. It has become routine to plead that one is exempt from the consequences.
A sentence of anything close to 10 years in prison for blocking traffic is mind boggling in itself, then add into the conversation crimes that result in deaths getting far shorter sentences. The time should fit the crime.
These non violent protesters thought it was okay to take time away from drivers on the bridge because they believed their actions and views were more important than anyone else The consequence should be that they, based on their intent to block the bridge and disrupt lives, should have time taken away from them. Anywhere from 3-30 days and or 240hours of public service. Actions will have consequences but be fair and realistic.
The opening sentences of this article do not get it quite right. All the jury will decide is whether the facts prove the elements of the charged crimes (the judge will instruct as to those elements) beyond a reasonable doubt. If a guilt verdict is returned, the judge and not the jury will hand down the sentence. The jurors will not even be told the range of possible sentences.
The jury decides if they will face said sentencing and the judge decides the sentence. It’s technically correct, though is an ideal blind justice scenario the jurors would be unaware of the lede question. In the real world, chances are jurors will be aware.
What is your prediction on the false imprisonment charge?
The question in the headline is do they deserve more than a decade in prison. I say no. 10 years sounds about right, and more than 10 a little excessive.
Is it even known whether someone was unable to get to emergency care due to this issue? Someone certainly could have died as a result of this blockade, even if the attempt to set up a diversion route had been successful due to the slow down and confusion on the bridge.
Definitely some sort of consequences need to be enacted for this – the protestors put innocent lives at risk.
“Necessary, urgent, lifesaving.” These words describe the blocking of traffic? Maybe if there were injured pedestrians lying on the ground or a horrific traffic accident that had just occurred. All this time and energy of the activists could have been spent digging tunnels in Gaza. Then they wouldn’t be facing felonies halfway across the globe.
These outrageous charges are happening because SF voters made the mistake of electing the most right-wing district attorney in decades, Brooke Jenkins. Jenkins hid how extreme her politics were, and made a majority of us, who were understandably worried about crime, believe she would be going after dangerous criminals. Well, instead she’s going after protesters, and the murder rate is up. Both safety and justice demand that we correct our mistake and remove Brooke Jenkins.
Brooke Jenkins being considered right wing shows just how far the left has moved to extremism.
It is not “extreme” or “outrageous” to charge these individuals with obstruction
Obstruction for *10 years* seems a bit much, don’t you think?
Sure and I think 5 years is fairer, which is also in line with other sentences I have seen given out in other places.
Even 5 years is an outrageously long sentence.
I hope they are convicted and sentenced to the maximum extent possible.
These narcissists thought their views on ANOTHER COUNTRY were more important than any San Francisco resident or worker who needed to get to work or the hospital or any other important (or unimportant) appointment.
These narcissists weren’t even protesting a local issue! And they had zero chance of actually affecting another country’s behavior. They just wanted to show off what they believe is their moral superiority.
We need to sentence them to the maximum extent possible as a deterrent, because other narcissists will be watching, and the Bay Area abounds in narcissists.
Looking at this from 2 sides, I’m against the Israeli war for moral and ethical reasons. However, from the other side, this caused people to miss work, doctors’ appointments, worsening of health conditions, business events, picking their kids/family members, deliveries, etc. Therefore, there has to be dual-process of law, then some form of fines/punishment.
These stupid malignant narcissists need to suffer the consequences of their selfish actions. I don’t think ten years is enough!
The means to the end thinking and protesting resulted in the realities of a lot of negative public feedback and law enforcement issues. If they had used conditions-consequences thinking, it would had something better. Now, it’s dual process of the law, and penalties/punishment. If you can’t see this from both sides, you have cognitive bias issues.
I am completely supportive of these protestor’s right to assemble and think it is overkill on the part of the DA’s office to a) charge this and b) take this all the way to trial, wasting valuable court resources for 2+ months. However, I think it is incredibly disingenuous for the headline copy editor and reporter to insinuate the DA’s office is seeking to put them in jail for 14 years. Even under the most draconian of regimes, never have such sentences been granted by an SF magistrate, let alone sought by the DA’s office for such nonviolent offences. There is no evidence this is the outcome the DA wants. What an unserious and clickbait-y headline.
@FreePeach4All – It is not at all unusual for newspapers to report the charges being sought by prosecutors, nor to put that in the headline. Whether or not it’s likely for a magistrate to agree to that, it is legitimate news to determine what kind of prosecution our D.A. is attempting.