DENVER — A federal jury in Denver has found Derrick Bernard Jr. and Ashley Blackcloud guilty of conspiracy and intimidation related to a hate-crime hoax that surfaced during the recent mayoral runoff in Colorado Springs. The jury deliberated for about four hours before reaching the verdict.
Bernard, aged 35, and Blackcloud, 40, were convicted on one count each of conspiracy and of maliciously conveying false information to intimidate others. They now face potential sentences of up to 15 years in prison and fines totaling $500,000. Bernard’s sentencing is scheduled for September 11, while Blackcloud will be sentenced six days later.
Bernard is currently serving a life sentence without parole for orchestrating the 2019 murder of William Underwood, known as the rapper “FYL Jackk.” The alleged triggerman, Aee Shawn Mathews, was acquitted of the murder charge but convicted of conspiracy to commit the crime last month.
Yemi Mobolade, the mayor of Colorado Springs and a key witness in the case, expressed his relief in a statement following the verdict. He stated that the outcome offers closure not only to his family but also to the community, reinforcing their commitment to a city free from hate. “Moments like this remind us that hate has no home in our city,” he said.
The five-day trial featured testimony from several witnesses, including Deanna West, 38, who testified against her co-defendants as part of a plea deal. The trio had worked together at a local radio station, “Family Flavors The Slide World Broadcasting Network,” which shut down shortly after the hoax was exposed.
Court records revealed that Bernard had relationships with both Blackcloud and West at different times. Notably, he referred to Blackcloud as his “beloved wife” during his testimony. Defense attorneys for both Bernard and Blackcloud had planned to call multiple witnesses but ultimately did not put any on the stand, relying instead on Bernard’s own testimony on Thursday.
During closing arguments, U.S. District Judge Regina Rodriguez highlighted the prosecution’s burden to demonstrate that the hoax constituted a true threat, contrary to the defendants’ claims of First Amendment protections. The case originated in November when the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced charges against Bernard, Blackcloud, and West for spreading false information tied to a supposed threat involving a burning cross, aiming to bolster Mobolade’s candidacy against Wayne Williams, who is White.
The incident involved sending videos and images of the cross burning and a racial slur to various media outlets, framing the act as linked to the election. U.S. Attorney Bryan Fields described the offense as a nightmare for the Mobolade family and articulated that the impact on the victims was central to the case, regardless of the defendants’ intentions.
Blackcloud’s attorney argued that the cross burning was a political stunt rather than a genuine threat and claimed that Mobolade’s delayed report to law enforcement cast doubt on the seriousness of the incident. Fields countered, asserting that the intent behind the threat was irrelevant; what mattered was how the threat was perceived by victims.
As the case concluded, the court was left to consider the implications of the intentional provocation used in the hoax as a method of intimidation during a heated election cycle.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested to be removed, retracted, or corrected by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.