On Oct. 28, trial proceedings concluded for Roan Wade ’25 and Kevin Engel ’27, who were arrested last October after setting up an encampment on Parkhurst lawn to protest Dartmouth’s investment in organizations “complicit with apartheid and its apparatuses.” The two were charged with misdemeanor criminal trespass and pleaded not guilty to the trespassing charge in their Dec. 18 arraignment.
The trial, which began on Feb. 26, had been delayed due to a busy court schedule, defense counsel Kira Kelley said. Five individuals — including College President Sian Leah Beilock, Department of Safety and Security director Keysi Montás, Lieutenant 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 trial’s conclusion, presiding District Court Judge Michael Mace did not immediately rule on the case and will release a decision at his discretion, according to Kelley. He did not offer a timeline for his decision.
Beilock’s testimony
On Monday, Beilock was called to testify for the first time in the trial after the defense subpoenaed her in February.
In her questioning of Beilock, Kelley focused on the College President’s relationship with donors, the College’s Board of Trustees and her actions before the protesters were arrested.
Kelley asked Beilock why the College requested assistance from the Hanover Police Department instead of initiating an internal conduct process.
Beilock responded that the College had told the protesters that erecting a tent was the “red line,” but they still wanted to give the students the “widest possible latitude.” Ultimately, administrators asked Hanover Police for assistance because the protesters had given them a document — Dartmouth New Deal — that “threatened physical action and escalation,” Beilock said.
Kelley also showed texts between Beilock and Board of Trustees chair Elizabeth Cahill Lempres ’83 Th’84 in which Beilock informed Lempres that there were students protesting in front of Parkhurst. In the texts, Lempres asked Beilock if the protesters were engaged in “BDS” — boycott, divest and sanction — activity.
Kelley said the term used by Lempres is “predominantly associated with Palestinians and the movement for Palestine." 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 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 claimed the administration had a specific disdain for Wade and Engel’s advocacy for 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 conceded that those protesters were not in tents.
Mace continued to emphasize the distinction between state law and agreements between Dartmouth and its students.
“Whatever [Dartmouth does] doesn’t matter to me,” he said. “It’s what the state of New Hampshire does with its citizens is what matters to me.”
Wrapping up Department of Safety and Security director Keyselim Montás’s testimony
Before Beilock took the stand, Kelley opened the trial by calling Montás back for cross-examination. The Safety and Security director had previously testified on Feb. 26. This time, Kelley questioned Montás about the two-day sit-in at the President’s Office organized by students in 2014, during which Montás said there were no arrests “that [he could] recall.”
“The situation was resolved by students leaving when they were asked to,” Montás said.
Throughout the cross-examination, Montás emphasized that Wade and Engel were offered opportunities to leave the tent and continue their protest once the encampment had been dismantled. Montás recalled a meeting on the evening of Oct. 27, 2023 “with several Dartmouth administrators,” testifying that those present had “discuss[ed] what to do” about the encampment. Administrators present at that meeting had hoped Engel and Wade would voluntarily leave but considered the “option” of arrest, he explained.
“We wanted to offer the students [Engel and Wade] an opportunity to move and to come into compliance, and we were wanting to do that to the very last opportunity,” Montás said. “[But] if everything else failed, we would have to revoke their privilege to be on that part of campus.”
Later, in cross-examination with Pastore, Montás testified that Dartmouth’s Disciplinary Procedures policy allows both College and legal action to be taken simultaneously. It “probably” would have taken one to two weeks to resolve the case through the College’s disciplinary avenues, he added.
Hanover Police officers testify
The decision to arrest students was not based on the “College’s position,” Ufford said. Schibuola testified during his cross-examination that he was “not aware of anything from the administrative end” before the decision to arrest students was made by the police department.
Pastore also submitted Ufford’s body camera footage as evidence. In the video, Montás makes a “last offering to [Wade and Engel]” and asks them to “please come out [of the tent]” or be arrested for trespass. After the two students refuse, Ufford informs them that they will be under arrest for criminal trespass. The clip also shows that Engel and Wade agreed to Ufford’s request to “come out peacefully” when instructed.
During cross-examination, Kelley furthered the defense’s argument that Wade and Engel had not presented a threat to the College. Ufford testified that “nothing came to mind” with regard to whether access to buildings was “in any way” impeded by the tent — nor did the tent pose a wind or fire hazard.
Pastore later asked Ufford whether trespass charges require officers to assess whether the trespasser poses a danger or threat. Ufford said neither is required.
Engel testifies
Engel, the final witness of the trial, gave a brief testimony.
Kelley questioned him on the Dartmouth New Deal’s use of the term “physical action,” which Engel said was a reference to the 2014 Freedom Budget — a document made by Dartmouth students prior to their occupation of the office of former president of the College Philip Hanlon.
Engel explained that the term referred to setting up the tent and occupying the area outside Parkhurst.
He thought he would receive a student conduct hearing before being arrested, based on his understanding of College procedure, he added.
During cross-examination, Pastore noted Montás’s earlier testimony. Engel had never indicated to Montás the expectation of disciplinary action prior to arrest, the prosecution explained.
Kelley objected, arguing that it was not Engel’s responsibility to request discipline, but Mace overruled, allowing Pastore to question Engel’s credibility.
Pastore ended by asking Engel to confirm he had not told Ufford he “needed” a hearing before his arrest, which Engel affirmed.
Hearing Ends
In the defense’s closing arguments, Kelley argued that Dartmouth’s handbook only allows for bypassing a conduct hearing in situations that are a “threat to the welfare of the community,” which she said were not present.
She suggested the College acted based on “what they thought they could get away with,” rather than genuine concerns over safety.
Pastore countered by defending Beilock’s concerns over “physical action” in the prosecution’s closing arguments. Dartmouth’s Standards of Conduct allow for the College to discipline students simultaneously when misconduct violates campus rules and the law, regardless of criminal outcomes, she emphasized.
She described this policy as a “clear message” that Dartmouth students “don’t run the show.” Pastore further contrasted Dartmouth students with individuals in court who lack privilege, calling it “offensive” that Wade and Engel should want to be treated “differently” by the defense motion to dismiss charges last July.
Kelley responded by noting Montás’s testimony that he was “unconcerned” about danger after reading the Dartmouth New Deal.
She closed her argument by saying that the College was “searching for reasons” for policy violations instead of “identifying a harm aside from a harm to reputation.”
In her final statement, Pastore reiterated that “you can’t just break the law” and defended her decision to take the case to court.
Mace concluded proceedings by stating he would take both arguments “under advisement.”
After the trial, Wade, Engel and approximately 20 supporters gathered outside to chant and “reflect” on the trial.
Wade emphasized their commitment to “Palestinian liberation” beyond the courtroom, while Engel expressed “disgust” at the state’s portrayal of Dartmouth students, arguing that he and Wade, as “first-generation, low-income and formerly homeless” students, reject the notion of remaining silent due to perceived privilege.
In an interview with The Dartmouth, Kelley said representing Engel and Wade was an “honor,” despite trial litigation not being her “favorite part of lawyering.”
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 a request for an interview.
A College spokesperson declined to comment.
