BURLINGTON, Vermont – The trial of a Vermont man accused of shooting three Palestinian college students opened Monday with emotional testimony from the victims and competing arguments over whether the defendant was legally responsible for the attack.
Jason Eaton, 51, has pleaded not guilty to three counts of attempted second-degree murder in connection with the November 2023 shooting in Burlington. All three students survived, but Hisham Awartani was left paralyzed from the waist down after being shot in the spine.
Awartani, Kinnan Abdalhamid and Tahseen Ali Ahmad testified on the first day of the trial. They told jurors that they were walking together near Awartani’s family home on Nov. 25, 2023, when a man approached them and opened fire without speaking.
The three men were 20 at the time. Two were wearing keffiyehs, traditional Palestinian scarves, and the group had been speaking a mixture of English and Arabic.
Victims describe the shooting
Awartani told jurors that he heard three gunshots before falling to the ground. Prosecutors also played the 911 call he made after being wounded.
The bullets struck each victim differently. Awartani suffered a spinal injury that left him paralyzed from the waist down; Abdalhamid was shot in the buttock, while Ahmad was wounded in the upper chest.
The three men described their attacker as an older, thin white man but did not identify Eaton specifically in court.
The prosecution’s case includes physical evidence and testimony from federal agents who investigated the shooting. Two Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents testified that they encountered Eaton at his apartment the day after the attack.
■ Related News
One agent said Eaton opened the door and told investigators he had been waiting for them before asking for a lawyer.
Defense centers on insanity claim
Eaton’s defense does not primarily dispute that he fired the shots. Instead, his lawyers are seeking to establish that he was legally insane at the time of the attack and therefore should not be held criminally responsible.
Defense attorney Joshua O’Hara told jurors that Eaton had begun receiving what he believed were messages from the CIA through a radio in the weeks before the shooting. The defense says Eaton believed he had been ordered to carry out the attack and could not understand that his actions were wrong.
Prosecutors are expected to present expert testimony challenging that account.
Deputy State’s Attorney Sally Adams told jurors that the evidence would show Eaton did not suffer from a mental disease or defect that prevented him from understanding the wrongfulness of his conduct. She also urged jurors to examine when and why Eaton began describing the alleged government instructions.
The question of Eaton’s mental state has been central to the case before the trial began. A judge previously ruled that he was competent to stand trial, while allowing the insanity defense to proceed.
Case carries wider sensitivity
The shooting occurred in November 2023, shortly after the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, and quickly drew national and international attention. The circumstances led to questions about whether the attack was motivated by anti-Palestinian or anti-Arab bias, although Eaton is being prosecuted on attempted murder charges rather than a separate hate-crime charge.
The court took additional precautions Monday because of the case’s political and emotional sensitivity. Some spectators wore keffiyehs in support of the victims, but Judge John Pacht ordered them removed before the jury entered, saying he was concerned that their presence could influence jurors.
The trial is expected to last about a week. Prosecutors and defense attorneys are expected to present competing psychiatric evidence before the jury considers whether Eaton is criminally responsible for the shootings.
For the victims, Monday marked the first opportunity to give their accounts of the shooting directly to a jury. For the defense and prosecution, the testimony began a case that will ultimately turn on a narrower legal question: whether Eaton understood the nature and wrongfulness of his actions when he opened fire.
Reporting Credit: Chittenden Superior Criminal Court — trial proceedings and judicial rulings; Vermont prosecutors — criminal charges and prosecution arguments; defense counsel for Jason Eaton — insanity defense; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — investigative evidence and agent testimony.
