Jurors in the case against three members of the activist group New Era Cleveland will return on Monday to continue deliberations, despite the prosecutor’s emergency motion, first filed Thursday and refiled Friday at the Ohio Supreme Court, to pause the case.
The trial of co-defendants Antoine Tolbert, Rameer Askew and Austreeia Everson started July 8. The three members of New Era face several felony charges, including extortion, aggravated robbery, kidnapping and aggravated menacing for a series of incidents on Cleveland’s East Side between July 27 and Aug. 15, 2024.
Prior to closing arguments in the trial, which centered on whether the three community activists’ activities were part of their community work or criminal behavior, prosecutors sought to have a mistrial declared.
“This trial hasn’t been fair to the state from the beginning,” said Cuyahoga County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Tasha Forchione during arguments Thursday over jury instructions that would be read immediately before jurors began deliberations. “There have been errors from start to finish.”
Those alleged errors included allowing witnesses to offer their opinions on whether crimes were committed by the defendants and permitting constitutional issues like First and Second Amendment protections to be mentioned by the defense during the trial.
But the most egregious issues, said Forchione, were included in the jury instructions.
One section of the instructions dealt with police bias and retaliation, based on evidence submitted during trial of retaliation against Antoine Tolbert by the lead detective in the case, Timothy Hannon.
In a video played for the jury, Hannon brought up the 2022 wrongful arrest of Tolbert while he openly carried firearms on Cleveland’s East Side and a 13-day suspension of the sergeant who made the decision to arrest Tolbert, Lance Henderson. A grand jury eventually declined to indict.
Prosecutors requested a mistrial based on defense-requested advice to the jury about officer immunity to civil penalties, but Judge William Vodrey denied the request.
“The law does not require jury trials be perfect,” said Vodrey, while denying the state’s motion for a mistrial. Vodrey also denied a request to pause the trial until the Supreme Court could weigh in.
The prosecutor’s office then filed a request for a stay of proceedings with the Ohio Supreme Court, hoping to pause the trial, before the disputed jury instructions were read, closing arguments and deliberations started, and while their motion for a mistrial was considered by the Supreme Court.
That request was still pending at the end of business Friday.
The attorney for Tolbert, Everson and Askew pressed the court to move ahead, despite the pending request with the Ohio Supreme Court.
“They see the writing on the wall,” said Peter Pattakos, lead defense attorney. “They see this jury is about to acquit.”
Vodrey ultimately allowed closing arguments to go ahead Thursday and read instructions to the jury late Friday morning.
“I am particularly mindful of the burden it would place on the jury,” said Vodrey, when deciding against waiting for the Supreme Court to make its decisions.
Vodrey offered to keep the verdict under seal if it comes in before the higher court decides on a mistrial and, if a mistrial is declared, destroy the record of the decision. But neither side agreed to that option.
