A San Francisco jury on July 2, 2026, convicted all seven defendants in People v. Anandpura et al., the criminal prosecution arising from a pro-Palestinian demonstration that blocked the Golden Gate Bridge for approximately four hours in April 2024 [1][2]. The case reached trial on charges including false imprisonment, obstruction of a thoroughfare, unlawful assembly, and, for defendant Sara Cantor, refusal to disperse, as well as a felony conspiracy count and a misdemeanor trespassing count that the prosecution carried into deliberations [1][3]. The defendants, Bhavika Anandpura, River Allen, Rocky Chau, Sara Cantor, Conrad de Jesus, Sarah Ferrell, and Em Tillotson, were tried together before San Francisco Superior Court Judge Teresa Caffese [1][2].
The jury returned guilty verdicts on all misdemeanor counts, convicting each defendant of multiple counts of false imprisonment, obstruction of a thoroughfare, and unlawful assembly, with Cantor also convicted of refusal to disperse [2][3]. The panel deadlocked, however, on the felony conspiracy charge and a count of trespassing with intent to interfere with business, and Judge Caffese declared a hung jury on both [1][3]. The People's Office, represented at trial by prosecutor Angela Roze of the San Francisco District Attorney's Office, did not secure any acquittals; the outcome on the two remaining counts was a mistrial by deadlock rather than an exoneration [1][2]. Defense counsel included Nuha Abusamra of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office and Shaffy Moeel [1].
Because all convicted counts are misdemeanors, sentencing exposure under California law is capped at a maximum of one year in county jail per count, with the possibility of probation, fines, or community service; the court has not yet entered judgment. Judge Caffese scheduled sentencing for August 21, 2026 [3]. The prosecution will face a decision on whether to retry the defendants on the hung felony conspiracy count and the trespassing count, a choice that carries political and legal weight given the scale of the prosecution and the resources already expended [1].
The trial drew national attention as one of the most closely watched protest prosecutions in recent American history, testing the boundary between First Amendment activity and conduct that imposes criminal liability on other individuals through physical restraint [2][3]. Defense teams argued throughout that the convictions conflate lawful civil disobedience with criminal imprisonment; the false imprisonment verdicts, in particular, are expected to generate post-trial motions and potential appellate challenges on constitutional grounds [1][2].