ATHENS, Ohio — Attorneys for a woman accused of slapping a police officer’s butt argued in court March 18 that the Athens County Prosecutor’s Office pursued additional charges against her in retaliation for her exercising her constitutional right to a jury trial.
Athens County Court of Common Pleas Judge George McCarthy, however, was not convinced.
“Obviously, you can read into a lot of things what you want to read into it,” McCarthy said at the Wednesday hearing. “The question is, when it gets to a court of law, what your proof is. Here, the court really hasn’t seen anything that demonstrates that the state’s been vindictive in filing the additional charges.”
Assistant Public Defender for the Ohio Public Defender’s Office Donald Gallick at the hearing that there was no other way to explain the actions of the Athens County Prosecutor’s Office, helmed by Keller Blackburn. McCarthy allowed the evidentiary hearing to move forward on March 18 despite being unconvinced by Gallick’s claims from the outset.
In a rare move, McCarthy allowed Gallick to call Blackburn to the stand to testify during the hearing.
The arguments around prosecutorial misconduct, and Blackburn’s testimony on the subject, therefore became part of the court record in the case. These arguments could now be more easily used by Gallick to appeal the case should Sweat be convicted on the charges she and her attorney argue were retaliatory, a primary reason Gallick said he sought the hearing.
July 2025 incident
Jennifer Sweat faces charges related to a July 29, 2025, incident in which police officers claim they found her topless and lying on top of a man on West Union Street, according to a police report obtained by the Independent.
Sweat was intoxicated at the time, according to the police report.
Ohio law specifically prohibits people from displaying their “private parts,” and nudity is defined within the law to include women appearing topless. However, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that breasts are not private parts.
When confronted by Athens Police Department Officer Andrew Foster, Sweat allegedly smacked his butt. Foster arrested Sweat, but she allegedly resisted and then kicked at and threatened him, according to Foster’s police report. The report does not clarify if Sweat successfully kicked the officer, noting that kicks were “attempted.”
While attempting to handcuff her, “I eventually just laid on top of her while she was laying on the backseat of the cruiser,” Foster wrote in his police report.
Foster was not injured during the course of the arrest, according to a use of force report on the incident the Independent obtained through a records request to APD. The agency redacted the entire narrative of the incident from the use of force report.
In a bill of particulars filed in the criminal case, the prosecutor’s office wrote that the “Defendant did cause physical harm” while kicking at Foster and grabbing at his hands while he attempted to place her under arrest.
Same evidence, new charges
Initially, Sweat faced four charges related to the July 2025 incident: assault (a fourth-degree felony), resisting arrest (a first-degree misdemeanor); public indecency (a fourth-degree misdemeanor); and obstructing official business (a second-degree misdemeanor).
The public indecency charge was later dropped by the prosecution.
Earlier this month, however, the Athens County Prosecutor’s Office pursued additional charges from a grand jury earlier this month — despite having no new evidence in the case.
The new charges include intimidation of an attorney, victim or witness in a criminal case (a third-degree felony); an additional fourth-degree felony assault charge; and sexual imposition (a third-degree misdemeanor).
Gallick filed a motion to dismiss the new charges, which included a memorandum of support alleging that they were filed because Sweat rejected a plea deal that included participation in a diversion program. Sweat considered the offer, attending a diversion meeting, according to Blackburn’s March 18 testimony. Ultimately, Sweat decided not to participate in the program.
The prosecutor’s office rebutted the defendant’s motion in a reply and at the hearing.
At the March 18 hearing, Blackburn explained why his office emphasized the program.
“I said, ‘It seems like Ms. Sweat has an alcohol issue, diversion would be ideal for her.’ Because, you know, we try to help people,” Blackburn said.
However, when Gallick asked Blackburn if the prosecutor knew if Sweat had a problem with alcohol other than the single incident in July, Blackburn said he did not.
“I have no idea what her day-to-day life is like,” Blackburn said, adding that he only knows she was “extremely intoxicated” during the July incident.
After Sweat rejected the plea deals, the prosecutor’s office presented the additional charges to a grand jury, which handed down an indictment. A jury trial was scheduled to take place five days after the new indictment, but it was delayed following Gallick’s request for the evidentiary hearing.
Gallick argued that pursuing the new charges without any new evidence to merit doing so was plainly vindictive.
“The prosecutor stepped up here and he said, ‘Well, she turned down diversion, so we went and went back to the grand jury and added more charges.’ I mean, that’s pretty clear,” Gallick said.
“He didn’t specifically say she’s trying to exercise her constitutional right to trial, and that’s why we went and put more charges on her, but it’s really the only other conclusion,” Gallick said. “It’s, ‘Take diversion or we will try to add more charges.’”
Blackburn testified that his office often files new charges if a case seems unlikely to resolve through a plea deal and will instead go to trial.
Gallick argued that just because it is common practice does not mean it is acceptable.
“Sorry I’m the first person to bring this up here, but it’s not something that you should do,” Gallick said. “They had all this information back in July 2025, August of 2025. There’s no new information, no new facts, no new witnesses. [Bringing new charges is] strictly retaliatory to try and stop her from exercising her constitutional right for trial.”
Assistant Prosecutor Ashley Johnson testified that she took over Sweat’s case when she returned to the prosecutor’s office from maternity leave. Although there was no new evidence since Sweat’s initial indictment, Johnson said that when she reviewed the case, she identified other possible charges for Sweat.
Blackburn said the office determined it was important that a jury consider all possible charges.
“That wasn’t done to punish her,” Blackburn testified. “It was done to ensure that all of the charges for which she could be charged were presented to the jury so she could exercise her right to trial and have them make a determination about the outcome.”
McCarthy agreed.
“The court just doesn’t see any inkling, any showing, of prosecutorial misconduct,” he said. “The mere fact that … the state filed additional charges that could have been brought at the beginning is not enough in and of itself to substantiate reading that into the indictment.”
McCarthy found Gallick’s motion not well taken, and denied the motion.
Sweat’s case will now proceed to trial. The trial, however, has been postponed as Foster sustained life threatening injuries earlier this month from which he has not recovered, according to a motion by the prosecution.
