Trial ends for two student protesters, Beilock testifies

On October 28, court proceedings concluded for Roan Wade ’25 and Kevin Engel ’27, who were arrested last October after setting up camp on the Parkhurst lawn to protest Dartmouth’s investment in organizations “complicit with apartheid and its apparatus”. The two were charged with misdemeanor trespassing and pleaded not guilty to the trespassing charge in court on December 18.

The trial, which began Feb. 26, was delayed because of a busy court schedule, attorney Kira Kelley said. Five people — including College President Sian Leah Beilock, Department of Safety and Security Director Keysi Montás, Lt. Mike Schibuola, Hanover Police Sergeant Matt Ufford and Engel — testified. The trial focused largely on trying to determine whether the College was justified in its response.

At the conclusion of the trial, District Court President Michael Mace did not immediately rule on the case and will issue a decision at his discretion, according to Kelley. He did not provide a time frame for his decision.

Beilock’s testimony

On Tuesday, Beilock was called to testify for the first time in the trial after the defense subpoenaed her in February.

In his questioning of Beilock, Kelley focused on the college president’s relationship with donors, the college’s Board of Trustees and his actions before the protesters were arrested.

Kelley asked Beilock why the College sought assistance from the Hanover Police Department instead of initiating an internal conduct process.

Beilock responded that the College told the protesters that erecting a tent was a “red line,” but still wanted to give students “the widest possible latitude.” Eventually, the administrators called for the assistance of the Hanover Police because the protesters gave them a document – Dartmouth New Deal — that “threat of physical action and escalation,” Beilock said.

Kelley also showed texts between Beilock and Board of Trustees President Elizabeth Cahill Lempres ’83 Th’84 in which Beilock informed Lempres that there were students protesting outside Parkhurst. In the texts, Lempres asked Beilock if the protesters were engaged in “BDS” activity – boycott, divestment and sanctions.

Kelley said the term used by Lempres is “predominantly associated with the Palestinians and the Palestine movement,” the language of the text exchanges demonstrated the administration’s “motivations” against Wade and Engel “based on the conduct of what they were discussing and not on any indication. of violence or threats to safety,” she argued

Prosecutor Mariana Pastore argued that the state “sees no relevance” in the issue of safety.

“There is no element of a criminal trespass charge that addresses safety,” she said.

Kelley argued that the administration had a specific disdain for Wade and Engel’s advocacy of the Palestinians. She cited the fact that there were other protests on campus that day, including a climate rally, where protesters did not face similar punishment. However, she acknowledged that those protesters were not in tents.

Mace went on to point out the distinction between state law and the agreements between Dartmouth and its students.

“Whatever (Dartmouth does) doesn’t matter to me,” he said. “What matters to me is what the state of New Hampshire does with its citizens.”

End of the testimony of the Director of the Department of Safety and Security, Keyselim Montás

Before Beilock took the stand, Kelley opened the trial by calling Montás back for questioning. The Director of Safety and Security previously testified on February 26. This time, Kelley questioned Montás about the two-day meeting in the Office of the President organized by students in 2014during which Montás said there were no arrests “that (he could) recall”.

“The situation was resolved by the students who left when they were asked to,” Montás said.

Throughout the interrogation, Montás emphasized that Wade and Engel were given opportunities to leave the tent and continue their protest once the camp was dismantled. Montás recalled a meeting on the evening of October 27, 2023 “with some Dartmouth administrators,” testifying that those present “discussed what to do” about the camp. Administrators present at that meeting hoped Engel and Wade would leave voluntarily, but considered the “option” of arrest, he explained.

“We wanted to give the students (Engel and Wade) an opportunity to move and comply, and we wanted to do that until the last opportunity,” Montás said. “(But) if all else failed, we would have to revoke their privilege to be on that part of campus.”

Later, in cross-examination of Pastore, Montás testified that Dartmouth’s policy on disciplinary proceedings allows for both college and legal action to be taken simultaneously. It would “probably” have taken a week or two to resolve the case through the College’s disciplinary channels, he added.

Hanover police officers testify

The decision to arrest the students was not based on “the college’s position,” Ufford said. Schibuola testified during his cross-examination that he “didn’t know anything from the administrative side” before the decision to arrest the students was made by the police department.

Pastore also presented Ufford’s body camera footage as evidence. In the video, Montás makes a “last offering to (Wade and Engel)” and asks them to “please get out (of the tent)” or be arrested for trespassing. After the two students refuse, Ufford informs them that they will be arrested for criminal trespass. The clip also shows that Engel and Wade agreed to Ufford’s request to “exit peacefully” when asked.

During cross-examination, Kelley continued the defense’s argument that Wade and Engel did not pose a threat to the college. Ufford testified that “nothing occurred to me” about whether access to the buildings was “in any way” impeded by the tent — nor was the tent a wind or fire hazard.

Pastore later asked Ufford if trespassing charges require officers to assess whether the offender poses a danger or threat. Ufford said neither is necessary.

Engel testifies

Engel, the trial’s final witness, gave brief testimony.

Kelley questioned him about the Dartmouth New Deal’s use of the term “physical action,” which Engel said was a reference to the 2014 freedom budget — a document drafted by Dartmouth students before the tenure of former college president Philip Hanlon.

Engel explained that the term refers to setting up the tent and occupying the area outside Parkhurst.

He believed he would receive a student conduct hearing before he was arrested, based on his understanding of the college’s procedure, he added.

During the interrogation, Pastore wrote down Montás’ previous testimony. Engel never indicated to Montás the expectation of disciplinary action before the arrest, the prosecution explained.

Kelley objected, arguing that it was not Engel’s responsibility to seek discipline, but Mace overruled, allowing Pastore to question Engel’s credibility.

Pastore concluded by asking Engel to confirm that he did not tell Ufford that he “needed” a hearing before his arrest, which Engel affirmed.

The hearing ends

In the defense’s closing arguments, Kelley argued that Dartmouth’s handbook only allows for bypassing a conduct hearing in situations that pose a “threat to the welfare of the community,” which she said were not present.

She suggested the College acted on “what they thought they could get away with” rather than genuine safety concerns.

Pastore countered by defending Beilock’s concerns about “physical action” in the prosecution’s closing arguments. Dartmouth’s standards of conduct allow the college to simultaneously discipline students when misconduct violates campus rules and the law, regardless of criminal outcomes, she pointed out.

She described the policy as a “clear message” that Dartmouth students “do not run the show.” Pastore also contrasted the Dartmouth students with individuals in court who lack the privilege, calling it “offensive” that Wade and Engel should be treated “differently” by the defense’s July motion to dismiss the charges.

Kelley responded by noting Montás’s testimony that he was not “worried” about the danger after reading the Dartmouth New Deal.

She concluded her argument by saying the College was “looking for reasons” for policy violations instead of “identifying an injury other than reputational injury.”

In his closing statement, Pastore reiterated that “you can’t just break the law” and defended his decision to take the case to court.

Mace closed the proceedings by stating that he would take both arguments “under advisement”.

After the trial, Wade, Engel and about 20 supporters gathered outside to sing and “reflect” on the trial.

Wade emphasized his commitment to the “liberation of the Palestinians” beyond the courtroom, while Engel expressed his “disgust” at the state’s portrayal of Dartmouth students, arguing that he and Wade, as students of ” first-generation, low-income, and formerly homeless,” reject the notion of remaining silent because of perceived privilege.

In an interview with The Dartmouth, Kelley said representing Engel and Wade was an “honor,” despite the fact that litigation is not her “favorite part of law.”

Kelley emphasized that the case was about power dynamics, arguing that her clients, as students, should be treated as equal parties to the contract with Dartmouth administrators.

Pastore declined the interview request.

A spokesman for the college declined to comment.