When UC Law San Francisco professor Emily Murphy hired one of her students as a research assistant in the summer of 2025 and invited him to coauthor a paper, she thought she was helping him launch a promising legal career.
But on Feb. 8, just weeks into the current semester, she and her children were forced to flee their San Francisco home, borrowing pajamas from neighbors, while Murphy received hundreds of violent messages mixed with unwanted overtures: “I will unleash hell on you,” “I will break you bitch,” and “I love you.”
According to court documents, the messages were written by Murphy’s teaching assistant David DeJesus.
DeJesus, 28, a former second-year law student, faces two felony stalking counts, a felony criminal threats charge, and two misdemeanors. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is being held without bail.
Murphy and her kids temporarily left their home after San Francisco police tracked DeJesus’ car and warned her that he was in the city, according to the San Francisco district attorney. A day later, the university banned DeJesus from campus. Murphy taught her classes remotely for weeks.
All the while, the student continued bombarding his frightened professor with messages, prosecutors say.
According to the prosecution’s detention filing, DeJesus was previously charged with battery causing serious bodily injury in Santa Cruz County in 2024. He was convicted of misdemeanor vandalism in 2019.
Eden Schwartz, a public defender, moved March 10 to have DeJesus released from custody, but Judge Brian J. Stretch denied the motion.
Stalking cases, while commonly reported, are difficult to prosecute in the San Francisco court system. There were 49 reported stalking incidents last year, but only seven arrests and six cases filed by prosecutors, according to the district attorney’s office (opens in new tab). In 2024, there were 62 reported cases, five arrests and five court cases.
According to the prosecution, DeJesus began taking Murphy’s contracts class in January 2025. Identifying him as among the top students in the class of approximately 75, Murphy encouraged DeJesus to attempt to transfer to Stanford Law School. Based on his performance, she selected him as her research assistant for the summer of 2025, according to court documents. The two subsequently collaborated on a paper intended for publication.
DeJesus voluntarily enrolled in Murphy’s evidence class in January — a course not required for his graduation. Prosecutors say the alleged harassment began Jan. 29, when DeJesus appeared at Murphy’s office hours and began behaving strangely. The following day, he texted her at length, saying he no longer wished to collaborate on the paper and wanted to be her “friend for the long term.” Murphy replied that communications about the paper should go through email. DeJesus responded by accusing her of having “boundary issues.”
The situation escalated quickly after that.
Murphy blocked his number. DeJesus emailed her. She did not respond. He requested contact via Signal. She did not respond. On Feb. 4, he emailed Murphy and the dean of UC Law, accusing Murphy of having a “fatal attraction obsession” with him, claiming she had either wanted to have sex with him or was a serial killer, court files claim.
DeJesus’ attorney said the relationship between Murphy and her client was more complex than prosecutors were asserting, having “blurred boundaries.”
“Mr. DeJesus is a husband and a father-to-be who has the strong support of his family,” said Schwartz, in a statement. “He denies the allegations and has pleaded not guilty to all charges.”
“Mr. DeJesus has known this professor for more than a year, during which time they developed a mentor-mentee relationship,” she added. “Over time, they grew closer, both academically and personally, exchanging messages on holidays and about meaningful life events. We believe those blurred boundaries contributed to some misunderstandings.”
During cross-examination March 10, Murphy confirmed that she and DeJesus had discussed personal matters, such as an upcoming visit from her father, and that DeJesus had shared what she described as “a history of trauma” and struggles with mental health and had been “effectively abandoned by his parents as a child.”
On Feb. 4, he allegedly texted Murphy: “My private eyes are watching you, and they see your every move.” The following day, he texted that he had beaten a man “to bloody pulp” and warned that anyone who crossed him would face the “full force of my retaliation” — adding that being a victim means “dead body.”
On Feb. 8, DeJesus allegedly sent what Murphy described as a relentless barrage of messages, including links to songs referencing sexual activity and sexual violence, which she interpreted as rape and death threats. Prosecutors say DeJesus became overtly threatening after getting banned from campus.
Murphy’s fears grew when a sergeant from the San Francisco Police Department’s special victims unit informed her that DeJesus’ license plate had been captured on a city surveillance camera not far from her home while the texts were still coming in.
The university on Feb. 9 obtained a workplace violence prevention temporary restraining order, banning DeJesus from campus. That same day, DeJesus allegedly texted Murphy that she was “completely fucked” and that it was “time to surrender” and left a voicemail accusing her of “stalking my family” and claiming she was “hurting my wife, baby, and me.”
An SFPD sergeant called DeJesus on Feb. 10, leaving a message telling him to stop contacting Murphy, as he was in violation of the restraining order.
Murphy testified that the messages she received in the days after the restraining order took effect were a sustained “blur of terror.” There were so many that she could not keep up with screenshotting them to document his statements.
Murphy testified that the messages continued incessantly from Jan. 29 through Feb. 19, when they stopped abruptly around 2 p.m. — the time, she learned from police, that DeJesus was arrested.
The final messages departed starkly in tone from what had come before.
“They started out the same — threatening, aggressive, violent,” Murphy said. “They ended apologetic, begging, saying this was all a joke that went too far.”
A UC Law SF spokesperson said March 11 that the school was cooperating with the district attorney’s office. “When we learn that any member of our community may have violated campus policies, we immediately reach out to affected individuals with resources and support and launch an inquiry into the alleged violations,” the spokesperson said, declining to comment further.
Murphy did not return home until Feb. 23. She told the court she moved back because DeJesus was in custody and “therefore unable to hurt me or my family.”
Murphy declined to speak to The Standard.
DeJesus’ attorney is working to get him into a mental health program, which would help him avoid prison if he completes a monitored treatment plan. He is scheduled to be arraigned Tuesday.