Trial in case of two student protesters ends, Beilock testifies

On October 28, the trial ended for Roan Wade ’25 and Kevin Engel ’27, who were arrested in October last year after setting up an encampment on the Parkhurst lawn to protest Dartmouth’s investments in organizations “in common with apartheid and its apparatuses.” Both were charged with trespassing and trespassing, and pleaded not guilty in their December 18 arraignment.

The trial, which began Feb. 26, was delayed because of a tight hearing schedule, defense attorney Kira Kelley said. Five people testified – including college president Sian Leah Beilock, Department of Safety and Security Director Keysi Montás, Lt. Mike Schibuola, Hanover Police Sergeant Matt Ufford and Engel. The trial focused largely on trying to determine whether the College’s response was reasonable.

According to Kelley, at the conclusion of the trial, District Court Presiding Judge Michael Mace did not immediately rule on the case and will issue a ruling at his discretion. He did not provide a deadline for making a decision.

Beilock’s testimony

On Tuesday, Beilock was called to testify for the first time at trial after being called by the defense in February.

In questioning Beilock, Kelley focused on the university president’s relationship with donors, the university’s Board of Trustees and its actions prior to the protesters’ arrest.

Kelley asked Beilock why the university turned to the Hanover Police Department for help instead of starting an internal process.

Beilock responded that the university told protesters that pitching a tent was a “red line,” but they still wanted to give students “the widest possible freedom.” Ultimately, administrators turned to Hannover police for help because protesters handed them a document – The New Deal at Dartmouth — which “threatened physical action and escalation,” Beilock said.

Kelley also showed text messages between Beilock and Board of Trustees Chairwoman Elizabeth Cahill Lempres ’83 Th’84 in which Beilock informed Lempres that students were protesting outside Parkhurst. In his text messages, Lempres asked Beilock if the protesters were involved in “BDS” – Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions activities.

Kelley said the term used by Lempres is “primarily associated with Palestinians and the movement for Palestine.” The language in the text exchange showed the administration’s “motivations” toward Wade and Engel “based on the conduct they discussed, rather than any indication of violence or security threats,” she argued

Prosecutor Mariana Pastore argued that the state “sees no importance” in the security issue.

“There is no element in the trespassing charge that involves security,” she said.

Kelley claimed that the administration had particular contempt for Wade and Engel’s support for the Palestinians. She cited the fact that there were other protests on campus that day, including a climate rally, during which the protesters did not face similar punishment. However, she admitted that the protesters were not staying 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. “What matters to me is what the state of New Hampshire does with its citizens.”

Summary 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 for a second hearing. The security director previously testified on February 26. This time, Kelley questioned Montás about a two-day sit-in at the Office of the President organized by students in 2014during which Montás stated that there were no arrests “that he (would) remember”.

“The situation was resolved when the students left the school when asked to do so,” Montás said.

During the hearing, Montás emphasized that Wade and Engel had the opportunity to leave the tent and continue their protest after the camp was dissolved. Montás recalled a meeting on the evening of October 27, 2023 “with several Dartmouth administrators,” testifying that those present “discussed (edited) what to do” regarding the encampment. Administrators at that meeting hoped Engel and Wade would leave the facility voluntarily, but they considered the “option” of arrest, he explained.

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

Later, during a hearing with Pastore, Montás testified that Dartmouth’s policy on disciplinary procedures allows for simultaneous action by the College and the court. He added that it would “probably” take one to two weeks to resolve the matter through College disciplinary action.

Hanover police officers testify

The decision to arrest students was not made based on the university’s “position,” Ufford said. Schibuola testified during questioning that he was “not aware of anything on the administrative side” before police decided to arrest the students.

Pastore also presented Ufford’s body camera footage as evidence. In the video, Montás makes a “last sacrifice (to Wade and Engel)” and asks them to “please leave (the tent)” or face arrest for trespassing. After the two students refuse, Ufford informs them that they will be arrested for trespassing. The recording also shows Engel and Wade agreeing to Ufford’s request to “leave peacefully” when ordered to do so.

During cross-examination, Kelley maintained the defense’s argument that Wade and Engel posed no threat to the College. Ufford testified that “nothing occurred to me” regarding whether the tent “in any way” impeded access to the buildings or posed a wind or fire hazard.

Pastore later asked Ufford whether a trespassing charge requires officers to assess whether an intruder poses a threat. Ufford said neither is required.

Engel testifies

Engel, the last witness in the trial, gave brief testimony.

Kelley questioned him about Dartmouth’s New Deal use of the term “physical action,” which Engel said was a reference to the 2014 Freedom Budget, a document drafted by Dartmouth students before former College President Philip Hanlon took over.

Engel explained that the term refers to pitching a tent and taking up land outside Parkhurst.

He added that he believed he would be questioned about the student’s conduct before being arrested, based on his understanding of the College’s procedures.

During the hearing, Pastore reviewed Montás’s previous testimony. The prosecutor’s office explained that Engel never informed Montás of the possibility of disciplinary action before his arrest.

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

Finally, Pastore asked Engel to confirm that he had not told Ufford he “needed” a pre-arrest hearing, which Engel confirmed.

The interrogation ends

In closing arguments for the defense, Kelley argued that Dartmouth’s handbook allows for bypassing a conduct hearing only in situations that pose a “threat to the well-being of the community,” which she claimed did not occur.

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

Pastore responded by defending Beilock’s concerns about “physical actions” in the prosecution’s closing arguments. She emphasized that Dartmouth’s “Standards of Conduct” allow the university to simultaneously discipline students when inappropriate behavior violates campus regulations and the law, regardless of criminal consequences.

She described the policy as a “clear message” that Dartmouth students “do not run the program.” Pastore further contrasted Dartmouth students with lack of privilege in court, calling it “offensive” that Wade and Engel wanted to be treated “differently” in connection with the defense’s motion to dismiss the charges last July.

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

She concluded her argument by saying that the College was “looking for reasons” for policy violations, rather than “identifying harm beyond reputational harm.”

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 the proceedings by stating that he would accept both arguments “under consultation”.

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

Outside the courtroom, Wade emphasized their commitment to the “liberation of Palestine,” while Engel expressed “disgust” with the state’s portrayal of Dartmouth students, arguing that he and Wade, as “first-generation, low-income and formerly homeless” students, they reject the concept of silence due to perceived privilege.

In an interview with The Dartmouth, Kelley said it was an “honor” to represent Engel and Wade, even though litigation is not her “favorite part of being a lawyer.”

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

Pastore declined an interview request.

A university spokesman declined to comment on the matter.