Jury Convicts Jason Eaton in Vermont Palestinian Students Shooting
A Vermont jury has convicted Jason Eaton of three counts of attempted second-degree murder for shooting and seriously injuring three Palestinian college students in Burlington in November 2023.
The verdict was delivered on Monday, 21 September 2026, in Chittenden Superior Criminal Court. Jurors deliberated for a little under two hours following a six-day trial before finding Eaton guilty on all three counts.
The three victims — Hisham Awartani, Kinnan Abdalhamid and Tahseen Aliahmad — were long-time friends who were visiting Burlington over the Thanksgiving holiday when they were shot while walking near Eaton’s home on 25 November 2023.
The Vermont Palestinian students shooting attracted international attention, particularly because it occurred weeks after the Israel-Hamas war began and amid heightened concerns about anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim violence in the United States.
However, authorities did not bring hate-crime charges, and investigators have not established a clear bias motive for the attack.
What Happened to the Three Palestinian Students?
The three young men were walking in Burlington when Eaton opened fire.
All three survived but suffered gunshot injuries. The consequences were particularly severe for Awartani, who became paralysed from the waist down.
The victims were university students studying at different institutions in the United States and had travelled to Vermont to spend Thanksgiving with friends and family.
The case immediately generated widespread concern because of their Palestinian identity and the timing of the shooting.
Questions about motive consequently became an important part of public discussion surrounding the case.
But it is important to distinguish that discussion from what prosecutors proved in court: Eaton was prosecuted for attempted second-degree murder, rather than a hate crime.
Jason Eaton Did Not Deny Carrying Out the Shooting
A central feature of the trial was that Eaton did not deny shooting the three students.
Instead, the dispute concerned whether he should be held criminally responsible for what he had done.
His lawyers presented an insanity defence, arguing that Eaton was suffering from serious delusions at the time of the attack.
During the trial, jurors heard evidence that Eaton claimed he believed he was receiving instructions from intelligence agencies, including the CIA and Israel’s Mossad, as well as what he regarded as divine commands.
There is no evidence that those agencies instructed him to carry out the shooting.
The defence argued that his claimed beliefs demonstrated he was legally insane at the time of the attack.
Prosecutors disputed that conclusion.
Jury Rejects Insanity Defence
The central question facing the jury was therefore not simply whether Eaton fired the shots, but whether he was legally responsible for his actions.
Mental-health experts offered differing assessments during the proceedings.
A defence expert testified that Eaton was legally insane at the time of the shooting. The prosecution presented expert evidence reaching a different conclusion and arguing that Eaton did not meet the legal standard for insanity.
After hearing the competing testimony and other evidence presented during the six-day trial, the jury rejected Eaton’s insanity defence.
Jurors found him guilty of all three attempted second-degree murder charges.
That verdict means the jury concluded he could be held criminally responsible for the shootings.
Eaton Had Previously Been Ruled Competent to Stand Trial
The question of Eaton’s mental condition had been examined well before the trial began.
In April 2026, Judge John Pacht ruled that Eaton was competent to stand trial following conflicting expert testimony about his mental state.
That issue was legally distinct from the insanity defence that was eventually presented to the jury.
Competency concerns whether a defendant is capable of understanding the legal proceedings and participating rationally in their defence at the time of the trial.
An insanity defence, by contrast, concerns the defendant’s legal responsibility for their actions at the time the alleged crime occurred.
Judge Pacht subsequently allowed Eaton to pursue an insanity defence, setting the stage for the competing psychiatric testimony heard by jurors.
What Evidence Did the Jury Hear?
The trial included testimony from the three students and psychiatric experts, as well as evidence related to the weapon used in the shooting.
According to the Associated Press, investigators linked the .380-calibre Ruger handgun to the attack.
Jurors were also played portions of a recording in which Eaton described the alleged voices and instructions he said he had experienced before the shooting.
The defence relied heavily on this material to argue that Eaton’s actions were the result of a serious psychiatric condition.
Prosecutors challenged that interpretation.
Ultimately, the jury accepted the prosecution’s case that Eaton remained criminally responsible.
Why Were Hate-Crime Questions Raised?
The identities of the victims and the timing of the attack prompted immediate questions about whether the students had been deliberately targeted because they were Palestinian.
The shooting happened on 25 November 2023, during an intense period of international tension following the start of the Israel-Hamas war the previous month.
The case consequently generated calls for authorities to investigate whether bias had played a role.
But despite those concerns, Eaton was not charged with a hate crime, and reporting on the case has said that no clear motive for the shooting was established.
That distinction matters. Describing the attack as definitively motivated by anti-Palestinian hatred would go beyond what has been established in the criminal case.
Victims Testified During the Trial
The students themselves played an important role in the proceedings.
During the trial, they provided evidence about the attack and its consequences.
Nearly three years had passed between the November 2023 shooting and the September 2026 verdict, drawing the conclusion of the trial a significant moment in a case that had moved through competency hearings, disputes over Eaton’s defence and several scheduling changes.
Awartani continues to live with particularly serious injuries after the shooting left him paralysed.
The physical and emotional consequences for all three victims remain an important part of the story beyond the courtroom verdict.
What Sentence Could Jason Eaton Receive?
Eaton has now been convicted of three counts of attempted second-degree murder.
Each charge carries the possibility of a severe sentence, and reporting from before the verdict indicated that Eaton could face up to life imprisonment.
His exact punishment has not yet been determined.
A sentencing hearing will therefore be the next major stage of the case.
Until the judge formally imposes a sentence, reports should avoid stating precisely how long Eaton will spend in prison.
A Case That Drew International Attention
The Vermont Palestinian students shooting became much more than a local criminal case.
It occurred during a period of heightened fear among Jewish, Muslim, Arab and Palestinian communities in the United States as the war in Gaza intensified political and social tensions.
The Palestinian identities of the victims brought international attention to the shooting almost immediately.
At the same time, the eventual trial focused heavily on a different legal question: whether Eaton’s claimed psychiatric condition meant he could be held criminally responsible for opening fire.
After hearing evidence from both sides, the Vermont jury answered that question by returning guilty verdicts on all three attempted-murder counts.
Conclusion
A Vermont jury has convicted Jason Eaton in the Vermont Palestinian students shooting, nearly three years after Hisham Awartani, Kinnan Abdalhamid and Tahseen Aliahmad were shot while walking in Burlington.
Eaton admitted carrying out the November 2023 shooting. Instead, his defence argued that he was legally insane and therefore should not be held criminally responsible.
After a six-day trial and less than two hours of deliberation, jurors rejected that defence and convicted the 51-year-old of three counts of attempted second-degree murder.
The verdict resolves the central question of Eaton’s criminal responsibility, but the legal process is not finished. His sentence has yet to be imposed.
The case also leaves an important distinction in place: although the shooting prompted widespread concern that the Palestinian students may have been targeted because of their identity, Eaton was not charged with a hate crime and a clear bias motive has not been established in court.
