State of Ohio v. Antoine Tolbert: Criminalizing Black Leaders - Trial Week 1 

CLEVELAND — The trial of Antoine Tolbert, also known as Chairman Fahiem, alongside co-defendants Austreeia Everson and Rameer Askew, has unfolded over the past week with high-stakes courtroom drama, legal sparring, and opening statements that have sparked broader conversations about race, activism, and justice.

The three community organizers, all affiliated with New Era Cleveland, face a list of serious charges1  including extortion, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping. The prosecution argues that the defendants operated as a vigilante militia, intimidating store owners and asserting control over their neighborhood. But defense attorneys —and many supporters in the community—frame the case as a glaring example of the state’s ongoing criminalization of Black leaders who challenge systemic inequity and build grassroots power.

Jury Selection and Pretrial Battles

The trial began Tuesday, July 8, with a series of pretrial motions and the start of jury selection. Tolbert’s attorneys filed a motion to compel the State to disclose the identity of a key witness—believed to be Rubin Swift 2, an alleged police informant who previously made allegations against Tolbert that led to a wrongful arrest and a civil rights settlement. The court denied the request, citing safety, though the defense argued that no credible threats had been presented and that Swift’s history raised serious credibility concerns.

The State also filed a motion in limine to bar the defense from raising political or constitutional arguments before the jury. The court partially granted the motion, limiting references to activism or police informants unless pre-approved. Defense lawyers argue that suppressing these narratives strips crucial context from the case and echoes historic patterns of silencing Black resistance.

Jury selection continued through July 10, with one prospective juror revealing a personal connection to witness Swift, prompting a sidebar with the prosecution. The process concluded after exhausting the initial and additional juror panels.

Meanwhile, Cleveland City Council President Blaine Griffin 3 —subpoenaed by the defense—filed a motion to quash his appearance, claiming legislative privilege and arguing that his public praise of New Era Cleveland was irrelevant. The defense plans to challenge the motion, saying Griffin’s support counters the prosecution’s attempts to vilify their clients.

Opening Statements: Two Competing Narratives

On Friday, July 11, both sides delivered opening statements that laid out starkly different narratives.

The prosecution claimed New Era Cleveland evolved into a militant group that used threats, rifles, and intimidation to control local businesses. Prosecutors alleged the group orchestrated a so-called “sting” against a suspected drug dealer and forced their presence on two Race Fuel gas stations in the Lee-Harvard and Lee-Miles areas. They described a pattern of aggression across multiple incidents and presented the defendants as armed and dangerous figures who believed they were above the law.

The defense, however, painted a radically different picture. They described Everson as a Marine Corps veteran with extensive community engagement experience, Askew as a youth leader and top student at Ginn academy, and Tolbert as a respected activist with a track record of de-escalation and public service. New Era Cleveland, they argued, fills the void left by systemic neglect and inconsistent policing. 4 The group provides safety patrols, youth mentorship, and neighborhood empowerment—efforts that earned them grants 5 and local recognition. The defense also claims the lead detective [detective Hannon] acted with a vendetta against Chairman Fahiem and even tampered or otherwise didn’t preserve exculpatory evidence.

Defense attorneys acknowledged tensions at the gas stations but framed them as conflicts—not crimes—exacerbated by racial profiling and fear. They say Tolbert and his team were invited by the community to maintain safety and that interactions with store owners and police were peaceful and often cooperative. Much, not all, of the video evidence, they noted, was filmed by the defendants themselves—underscoring their intent to remain transparent and lawful.

In a move the defense calls racially coded and inflammatory, prosecutors repeatedly invoked violent language—describing the defendants as threatening and heavily armed. Advocates point out the troubling parallels to how past Black leaders were portrayed as threats rather than visionaries. 6

Witness Testimony and Press Freedom

The State’s first witness, Cleveland mother Jameka Hale, testified about her son’s involvement in a New Era youth program. While she initially praised Tolbert’s mentoring, she later expressed safety concerns, which the prosecution emphasized. Hale identified her son, Tolbert, and Askew in footage played in court.

Also on Friday, the prosecution accused independent journalist Kameron Damaska of Reconstruction News 7 of witness intimidation, alleging that a published article—based on public court documents—jeopardized the integrity of the trial. The judge declined to take any action on the accusation, citing a lack of sufficient evidence that the article interfered with proceedings or threatened any witnesses. Defense counsel argued that Damaska’s reporting relied entirely on publicly available information obtained through open court records and docket filings, protected under both the First Amendment 8 and Ohio’s Public Records Act. 9

In the same session, the prosecution filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude any reference to a 2018 Inside Edition 10  television segment involving key State witness Rubin Swift. In the segment, Swift was accused of misrepresenting paternity and fraudulently signing a birth certificate—allegations the State claims are unrelated, unproven, and highly prejudicial. Prosecutors argued the defense failed to give proper notice as required under Ohio Rule of Evidence 404(B) 11, and said the information constituted inadmissible character evidence and hearsay. The defense countered that the 2018 incident speaks directly to Swift’s credibility and veracity as a witness, asserting that such context is vital for the jury's assessment of truthfulness under Rule 608(B).12 The court has yet to rule definitively on the matter.

The Bigger Picture

As the trial continues, many see it as part of a broader pattern: when Black leaders mobilize to protect and serve their communities—especially in ways that challenge traditional power structures—they often become targets of state surveillance, legal intimidation, and prosecution.

“Conflict is not abuse,” the defense said in its opening statement, a theme that now echoes through the halls of the Cuyahoga County Justice Center.

The trial is scheduled to resume Monday, July 14.