In a 96-page opening brief, attorneys for John Alexis Jackson outlined their arguments for why his convictions for the production of child pornography, and transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, should be vacated. Photo: USVIPD

The former olympic boxer was arrested in February 2019 after the father of a minor girl went to local police to report that Jackson had been having sex with his daughter. On April 22, 2022, Mr. Jackson was found guilty by a federal jury of a slew of sex crimes, including child pornography, first-and second-degree rape, and transportation of a minor for sexual activity.

During his trial, prosecutors played a V.I. Police Department interview with Jackson in court, where he confessed to having sex with a 15-year-old victim, also admitting that the minor gave him oral sex on his birthday. The jury was also shown video footage recorded by Mr. Jackson of him having sex with the victim. At the time, he was 30 years old. In February 2023, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison. 

In his appeal, however, lawyers argue that prosecutors did not provide sufficient evidence that Mr. Jackson intended to produce child pornography. They also did not prove his intent to engage in sexual activity following the transportation of the minors, his attorneys allege. Further, the evidence which was used to convict Mr. Jackson was collected via an invalid warrant, and therefore should never have been admitted in court.

Regarding the warrant, Mr. Jackson’s attorneys allege that “law enforcement within the district have engaged in a pattern of Fourth Amendment violations when executing warrants,” arguing that such a violation occurred in the execution of the search warrant for Mr. Jackson’s home. The government conceded as such, and the trial court’s ruling that the evidence could be admissible anyway was an error, Mr. Jackson’s attorneys argue, because “the conduct here was sufficiently deliberate that only exclusion would meaningfully deter it.” 

About his intent in transporting the minor children, Mr. Jackson’s lawyers say that prosecutors failed to prove that sexual activity was the dominant motive for these trips, arguing that various reasons served as motivation, including taking them to and from school, athletic practice, or “non-sexual dates,” as well as the safe transport home of one of the alleged victims who had become intoxicated at a bar.

“Appellant was engaged in the typical duties of a boyfriend in transporting girlfriends that did not have cars,” Mr. Jackson’s lawyers claimed, sidestepping the fact of the adult man’s age in comparison with his minor “girlfriends”. While admitting that “many of these trips may have ended in sexual intercourse,” his lawyers nevertheless maintain that the state failed to prove that sex was the primary motive for the trips.