After more than seven days of deliberations that followed a three-week trial, a San Diego jury on Friday convicted two Los Angeles-area men of conspiracy to riot as part of the first-ever prosecution alleging a criminal conspiracy by antifa.

The jury also convicted one of the defendants, 27-year-old Brian Cortez Lightfoot, of five additional counts of use of tear gas not in self-defense, but ended up hung on nine counts of assault. The judge declared a mistrial on those charges. The jury acquitted both Lightfoot and his co-defendant, 41-year-old Jeremy Jonathan White, on an additional count of assault.

Prosecutors alleged that Lightfoot and White were self-described anti-fascists who showed up prepared to attack their political enemies at a Jan. 9, 2021, “Patriot March” in Pacific Beach organized by supporters of then-outgoing President Donald Trump. Defense attorneys told the jurors their clients were there to counter-protest the march — which took place just three days after Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol — and that any violence they might have participated in was self-defense against provocateurs and armed members of the pro-Trump group.

Experts said the case marked the first instance nationwide in which prosecutors alleged a conspiracy by members of antifa, which is generally considered a decentralized, leaderless ideology rather than a structured group.

Because of the nature of conspiracy cases, in which defendants can be held accountable for the actions of their co-conspirators, prosecutors presented the jury with an array of evidence alleging 11 separate incidents of violence committed by similarly dressed black-clad counter-protesters that day in Pacific Beach. White and Lightfoot were only accused of actually participating in some of the violent incidents — and White was acquitted of the only underlying assault charge he faced, which involved him allegedly pointing to a man who others then attacked.

“Basically … what he got convicted for is what he was wearing, which is problematic for the First Amendment,” Curtis Briggs, White’s San Francisco-based defense attorney, told reporters outside the courtroom Friday. “Mr. White will definitely appeal after sentencing, and I think it’s an amazing appellate area that implicates the First Amendment.”

Neither man reacted when the verdicts were read. White faces up to two years in custody, and Lightfoot faces a maximum sentence of five years and four months in prison.

Nine co-defendants in the case previously pleaded guilty to various charges. Some have been sentenced to prison. Others will be sentenced later this year along with White and Lightfoot.

“We want to thank the jury for their service and for reaching their just guilty verdicts on the two remaining defendants in the Antifa conspiracy case,” District Attorney Summer Stephan told the Union-Tribune in a statement. “This was a complex case with 11 defendants indicted and now all convicted — nine by guilty pleas and two by jury verdict. The DA team worked tirelessly on this case in order to be sure our community remains safe, and that the rule of law is followed.”

John Hamasaki, Lightfoot’s San Francisco-based defense attorney, said the government spent an inordinate amount of resources on the case considering its nature.

“The DA expended probably the most resources I’ve seen them expend in any case — murders, multiple murders, gang murders — I’ve never seen a DA’s office expend this much resources for a single case, and I think you have to look at the political circumstances surrounding it,” Hamasaki said Friday after the verdicts were announced.

During April 23 closing arguments, Hamasaki and Briggs both alleged the prosecution was biased against left-wing activists who police and prosecutors view as “their ideological opponent.”

Briggs argued that his client showed up in Pacific Beach as a medic and “didn’t punch, kick or fight anyone.” He said White showed up to exercise his First Amendment rights and to protect his fellow anti-fascist protesters.

The attorney showed the jury video footage from a police helicopter accompanied by the radio chatter between officers at the time. In the video, police repeat multiple times that Proud Boys, who they describe as being “very anti-police,” have “hijacked” the Patriot March.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the Proud Boys a hate group, and the Anti-Defamation League has designated it a right-wing extremist group.

“This is excellent context when you’re trying to understand how scared Mr. Lightfoot would have been, how scared Mr. White would have been — this all goes into their state of mind with their actions that day,” Briggs told the jurors. “You should ask why you didn’t hear about this from the prosecution.”

During her rebuttal, Deputy District Attorney Mackenzie Harvey told the jury that the police discussion of the Proud Boys occurred “long, long after the day of violence” allegedly carried out by the antifa group.

“This video … introduced into the trial this term ‘the Proud Boys,’” Harvey told the jurors. “It gave the defense the opportunity to try to convince you that there is some other evidence, something else that you should consider, directly contrary to the court’s instructions … The defense is trying to play on your emotions about a group, maybe that you’ve heard about at other times and other places. They want to insert that into this case, improperly.”

While Briggs spent most of his closing arguments presenting evidence that he said showed his client was not guilty, he returned several times to questions about what police and prosecutors failed to show the jury about the people on the other side of the violence that day — including at least five who had been at the storming of the Capitol three days earlier. He also argued that police and prosecutors had every reason to want to target White, who Briggs said had advocated in the past for justice reform and taking power away from prosecutors and police.

Harvey countered that trials are about facts and evidence, not the feelings of deputy district attorneys or law enforcement officers.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Daniel Goldstein warned the sides before trial about making personal attacks against each other and had urged all parties to settle the case based on its political implications.

In November, Briggs argued that Stephan and her office should be disqualified from trying the case, alleging they were politically biased against anti-fascists and had demonstrated a pattern of failing to prosecute members of right-wing groups who committed violence at political rallies and protests. His argument had focused, in part, on Stephan’s controversial 2018 campaign website. It featured a menacing image of antifa marchers behind a superimposed photo of George Soros, the billionaire liberal activist who is often vilified in conservative circles and had donated money to a super PAC supporting Stephan’s opponent.

Goldstein denied the disqualification motion, ruling no conflict of interest existed, but warned that the case’s political aspect could derail the trial.

“Both sides want to pull this into the political realm,” Goldstein said during the November hearing.

Hamasaki acknowledged to the jury during closing arguments that some of the videos they’d seen were “really bad” and that wrongful conduct had occurred that day in Pacific Beach. “But that doesn’t mean that Brian should be held accountable for other peoples’ actions,” he told the jurors. “Brian should be held accountable for what Brian did.”

Hamasaki said Friday outside of court that there was “problematic evidence” for his client, but he thought it was a fair verdict based on the evidence.

“Ultimately they didn’t get to guilty verdicts on nine counts, so that’s a huge victory for the defense,” Hamasaki said. He hopes Goldstein will sentence Lightfoot to probation rather than time in custody.

During closing arguments, Harvey, the prosecutor, accused the defendants of lying when they took the stand, telling the jury they could disregard all of their testimony because of it. As to the political implications of the case, she told the jury that ideology didn’t matter — even if some of the victims were not the most sympathetic.

“At the end of the day, so what? So what if somebody had swastika tattoos on their face?” Harvey asked the jurors. “Incredibly offensive to probably everyone in this room? Absolutely. But what happened to the law? … No matter what, everyone is entitled to equal protection of the law, no matter what they believe.”

Goldstein set a June 28 sentencing hearing for White, Lightfoot and their co-defendants who have pleaded guilty but not yet been sentenced.