The information below is based the following article by Alex Rose published in the Delco Times on July 14, 2025: ‘Swarthmore Nine’ held for court on trespassing charges
Between April 30 and May 3, 2025, at Swarthmore College’s Trotter Lawn, the Swarthmore Students for Justice in Palestine organization–which was suspended according to college President Val Smith–engaged in a four-day, pro-Palestine demonstration and encampment.
On the second day (April 31), a confrontation between administration and protesters began as the latter demanded that Swarthmore College cut ties with Israeli-affiliated companies and agree not to assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from making arrests.
Protesters insisted they would not leave until their demands were fulfilled. In response, the administration repeatedly informed protesters that they were violating school policy and must disperse by 4 p.m., or else they may be arrested. The protesters did not comply with the college’s request.
On May 3 (day four) at 7:45 a.m., Swarthmore Police and other local agencies dispatched to the college and sent a final warning to end the demonstration within 10 minutes or face arrest for trespassing. At 8 a.m., the police approached the encampment, separated arm-linked protesters individually, and took them into custody.
According to President Smith, safety and security concerns among administration and law enforcement agencies (including the FBI) grew as protesters refused to discuss ending the demonstration and continued to violate college policies, including failing to produce college identification, inviting members of the public, and assembling tents.
For a free legal consultation, call 215.515.3360
Each of the following defendants is charged with a single count of defiant trespass, a third-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail and fines up to $2,000: Riley J. McManus (23), Colin Buckley Malcarney (24), Thomas J. Falcone (29), Mar Helen Cahill (29), Jonathan Britt (25), Daria C. Dressler (29), Andrew R. Gilbert (19), Jace Mirghani Boland, (19), and Brendan D. Cook (23).
A defiant trespass occurs when someone deliberately enters or stays on property after being notified to leave.
Defense attorney Marni Jo Snyder is representing all of the defendants except Malcarney (8), who is represented by defense counsel Anna Hinchan.
According to Snyder, only two of the defendants are students while one is on leave; however, the college claims that only one is a student and one is a former student (instead of on leave).
During the preliminary hearing on July 18 at the Media District Court, Magisterial District Judge Elizabeth Gallard determined there was strong enough evidence to proceed with the charges. Assistant District Attorney Hannah Pruitt is set to prosecute the case.
Snyder has implied that, over the course of several days, the college administration contemplated internally (and with law enforcement) how they should handle the demonstration–which seems to indicate that there was not an immediate need to intervene.
Snyder said, “If someone is in danger or property is in danger, you can call 911 and there are charges that protect property and protect people. Instead, there was a ton of conversation about what needed to be done (beforehand).”
A release from protest supporters claimed the arrests were politically motivated to distract from the crisis in Gaza and again called for Swarthmore College to end relations with Israel-aligned companies; Delaware County District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer said the defendants are “being held liable for their criminal actions, not their political views.”
The release also implied that excessive force and violence occurred during the arrests; Folcroft Deputy Police Chief and Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 27 President Chris Eiserman said that police body cam footage proves otherwise and the officers conducted themselves with respect and professionalism.
According to Snyder and supporters outside the courtroom, updates were recently made to the college’s student code banning encampments, banners, and projectors. Snyder claimed this was a deliberate attempt to silence her clients and opposed the college’s commitment to open and active exchange of ideas.
She said, “The First Amendment protects not just polite or popular speech, but it is important that it protects unpopular or uncomfortable speech as well”
In light of protest supporters criticizing recent policy revisions requiring the prior authorization of banners and limiting where they may be displayed (or else they would be removed), the college spokesperson insisted that the college does not discourage peaceful protests.
One supporter, in particular, described how Swarthmore College has the fourth largest endowment in Pennsylvania, which it has invested in global tech companies that provide servers and IT support for the Israeli military.
With the Trump administration insisting that it will withhold federal funding from institutions viewed as sympathetic or permissive of protesters supporting Palestine, Snyder hinted that the college likely had two main objectives: 1) to remove the protesters from campus, and 2) deliver a message; both of which it achieved. In her view, proceeding with the prosecution makes little sense beyond punishment.
Snyder said, “The best way to promote free speech and to make sure that these young people’s lives aren’t ruined, and to live up to the standards of your (college), are to drop the charges now that no one’s on the grass. If they were really that scared of losing their federal funding, now it’s over. Now it’s done. I hope to see better from them in the future, but this protest is done and they shouldn’t be prosecuting these nine people.”
Each of the nine defendants is free on $5,000 unsecured bail and scheduled for formal arraignment on Aug. 27 at the County Courthouse in Media.
Check out our criminal defense practice areas page to learn more about the types of cases the Law Offices of M.J. Snyder specializes in handling.
