A staged cross burning in Colorado Springs meant to spark sympathy for a Black political candidate has ended in convictions for two residents.

Ashley Blackcloud and Derrick Bernard were found guilty Friday of intentionally spreading false information about a threat, after staging a racially charged hoax to influence voters ahead of the 2023 mayoral election in Colorado Springs, as the New York Post reports.

The case centers around an incident in 2023, when a burning cross was placed near a campaign sign belonging to Yemi Mobolade, a Black candidate running for mayor of Colorado Springs. Prosecutors say Blackcloud and Bernard, both residents of Colorado and members of marginalized racial communities themselves, orchestrated the event to drum up voter support for Mobolade by creating the illusion of a hate crime.

According to trial testimony, Blackcloud and Bernard carried out the symbolic act in one of Colorado’s largest cities, knowingly faking a racially motivated threat. The visual impact of the burning cross was captured in images that Bernard later distributed to local media. He admitted under oath that he shared the footage despite full awareness that the event had been staged.

Cross burning goes viral, stirs fear

The imagery of the burned cross resonated across the community and stirred real fear. As evidence showed during the trial, Mobolade and his family interpreted the incident as an authentic threat. In response, they purchased home safety gear, including fire ladders and a trauma kit, believing the dangers were real.

Though prosecutors acknowledged that expressions like cross burnings can potentially fall under First Amendment protections, they emphasized that what mattered in this case was the perception of threat by the public and the victim. Assistant U.S. Attorney Bryan Fields argued the act's impact was the same -- fear and disruption -- whether it was real or fake.

“What was Yemi and his family supposed to see through the flames? A joke? Theater?” Fields asked, highlighting the danger of instilling fear through dishonest means. “The defendants needed the public to believe this was a real threat for it to have the effect that they wanted of influencing an election.”

Motive discussed at trial

Blackcloud’s defense did not dispute her participation in the hoax. Her attorney, Britt Cobb, described the act as “political theater,” claiming it was never intended to cause harm or intimidate. He argued that since the event was essentially a performance, it fell short of any legal definition of a true threat.

“If he knows it’s a hoax, there’s no way it's a threat,” Cobb said, referring to Bernard’s role in sharing the images. He maintained that because both defendants lacked malicious intent, the event should not be classified as a criminal act.

Bernard’s attorney, Tyrone Glover, provided a similar defense. He emphasized Bernard’s belief that he was attempting to help Mobolade’s campaign by creating a dramatic, though fake, catalyst. Though Bernard denied participating in the actual set-up, he admitted in court that he distributed the materials despite knowing the incident was fabricated.

Trial details unfold

During the trial, the defense suggested that Mobolade and his campaign may have had prior knowledge of the hoax or at least suspected something was amiss early on. Internal communications reportedly showed campaign staff expressing doubts about the event's authenticity shortly after it was publicized.

Furthermore, records indicated that there had been communication between Bernard and Mobolade both before and after the cross burning. This fueled speculation that the candidate may have been in on the act. However, the FBI led a thorough investigation and determined there was no evidence that Mobolade had any role in planning or carrying out the event.

Despite this assertion, members of the prosecution remained firm in treating the incident as a deceitful attempt to manipulate electoral outcomes under the guise of victimhood.

Lessons to learn

1. Understand the Consequences of False Claims: Hoaxes involving threats or hate symbols, even when intended to serve a perceived higher cause, hurt communities and dilute attention from real victims. These actions erode public trust and take attention away from genuine harm.

2. Think Critically Before Sharing Viral Content: Photos and videos circulated quickly can inflict emotional trauma and fear, even if they are staged. Social media users and media outlets should double-check sources before contributing to the spread of potentially misleading information.

3. Don’t Assume Everyone Is Safe From Crime: While there are actions citizens can take to safeguard themselves against fraud and manipulation, crime can happen to anyone.

Victims should never be blamed, and communities must continue to support those who experience real threats or violence.

Why this story matters

This story raises questions about the intersection of activism, deception, and political gain in deeply polarized times.

It underscores the importance of truth and transparency, particularly during sensitive election cycles. Communities must be able to distinguish between real threats and manipulated narratives to make informed decisions.