CINCINNATI — Two people involved in a violent downtown brawl last summer have been sentenced nearly one year after the event made national headlines and sparked widespread debate.
Aisha Devaughn, 26, pleaded guilty to aggravated riot and aggravated assault in connection with the fight after prosecutors said she repeatedly "kicked (and) stomped" a man while he was on the ground.
Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Virginia Tallent sentenced Devaughn to six months at River City Correctional Center, followed by four years of community control and 200 hours of community service.
Before sentencing, Devaughn spoke about her participation in the fight.
"I'm standing here today to take full responsibility for the role I played that brought me before this court," she said in court.
WATCH: Here's what happened in court
Tallent criticized Devaughn’s decision-making.
"You continue to exercise extremely poor judgment in difficult circumstances," Tallent said.
Tallent also sentenced 33-year-old Gregory Wright, who pleaded guilty to felony theft and misdemeanor riot after police said he stole a necklace off the neck of an alleged assault victim during the fight.
Addressing the court, Wright apologized to those affected by the incident.
"I want to apologize to the victim, my family. I promise I won’t let it happen again," Wright said.
Tallent spoke about the seriousness of Wright’s theft conviction during sentencing.
"You chose to take something that didn’t belong to you," she said. "That’s a lesson that you should learn when you’re in kindergarten."
Wright was sentenced to three years of community control and 200 hours of community service.
Jermaine Matthews, another defendant connected to the case, was also scheduled to be sentenced Wednesday. However, his hearing was continued to a later date.
According to court proceedings, four of the eight people charged in the brawl have now been sentenced, while two additional defendants continue to move through the court system.
Fanon Rucker, managing attorney with the Cochran Firm, said differing sentences are not unusual in high-profile cases, particularly when courts evaluate each defendant's specific actions, criminal history and signs of rehabilitation.
"One of the things we are carefully advised as judges and lawyers is to avoid making decisions based on public clamor," said Rucker. "It’s easy for us as citizens to doubt, question, criticize, and say that was too lenient or that was too harsh, but that’s a careful instruction judges are to avoid."
