IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
JOHN JACKSON, 
Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Case No. 3:19-cr-0015 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
ORDER 
BEFORE THE COURT are two motions filed by Defendant John Jackson (“Jackson”) 
pro se, (ECF Nos. 148, 149), and a motion by the United States to strike those motions from 
the record. (ECF No. 150.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant the motion to 
strike and will strike the pro se motions from the record.  
I. 
BACKGROUND 
On February 23, 2019, Jackson was charged with various offenses in violation of 18 
U.S.C. § 2251(a). (ECF No. 1.)1  An arrest warrant was carried out pursuant to the criminal 
complaint also on February 23, 2019. (ECF No. 6.)  
At the outset of the proceedings, Jackson was represented by Attorney Carl R. 
Williams. (ECF No. 4.) On July 3, 2019, Attorney Williams filed a motion to withdraw, citing 
an “unreasonable financial burden” were he to continue representing Jackson. Id. at 1. 
Thereafter, on July 10, 2019, the magistrate judge relieved Attorney Williams as retained 
counsel and appointed the Office of the Federal Public Defender to represent Jackson. (ECF 
No. 44.) On that same day, attorneys from the Office of the Federal Public Defender filed 
Notices of Appearance on behalf of Jackson. (ECF Nos. 45 and 46.)  
After several continuances – primarily attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic – the 
Court, on March 19, 2021, set this matter for jury selection and trial for Monday, July 19, 
2021. (ECF No. 119.) On the day of trial, Jackson submitted a letter to the Court expressing 
 
1 The Government later filed an Indictment (ECF No. 22), Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 27), and a Second 
Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 34) on April 18, 2019, May 23, 2019, and June 6, 2019, respectively. 
Case: 3:19-cr-00015-RAM-RM   Document #: 151   Filed: 01/20/22   Page 1 of 3
United States v. Jackson 
Case No. 3:19-cr-0015 
Order 
Page 2 of 3 
  
displeasure with his current counsel and requesting a continuance so that he could hire his 
own private attorney. (ECF No. 132.) After discussing the matter ex parte with Jackson and 
his then current counsel, the Court determined that there was a breakdown in the attorney-
client relationship warranting relieving the Office of the Federal Public Defender from 
further representing Jackson. The Court continued the trial and directed Jackson to obtain 
private counsel who would be required to enter an appearance by no later than August 6, 
2021. (ECF No. 134).  
On August 6, 2021, Attorney Yohana M. Manning filed a Notice of Appearance on 
behalf of Jackson. (ECF No. 139). Thereafter, on December 23, 2021, Jackson filed two pro se 
motions: the first seeking de novo review of his bail release conditions; and the second 
seeking a return of certain personal property seized by law enforcement officials during the 
execution of a search warrant. (ECF Nos. 148, 149.) There is no indication that Attorney 
Manning signed either of these two motions or that Jackson consulted with Attorney 
Manning prior to their respective filings. Attorney Manning remains the attorney of record 
for Jackson. 
On January 6, 2022, the Government filed a motion to strike Jackson’s two pro se 
motions because Jackson was not permitted to have “hybrid” representation and that “any 
matters [Jackson] wants to raise to the Court should be filed by his attorney of record.” (ECF 
No. 150 at 2.)  
II. 
DISCUSSION 
It is well-established that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to self-
representation. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 (1975). A criminal defendant 
represented by counsel, however, does not have a constitutional right “to proceed 
simultaneously by counsel and pro se . . .” United States v. D’Amario, 268 Fed. App’x 179, 180 
(3d Cir. 2008) (citing McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183, 104 S. Ct. 944, 79 L. Ed. 2d 122 
(1984)). This Court has discretion to allow a defendant to proceed with a “hybrid” 
representation. United States v. Bankoff, 613 F.3d 358, 373-74 (3d Cir. 2010). 
Here, Jackson retained Attorney Manning to represent him in this matter. In fact, on 
the day of jury selection and trial, Jackson specifically requested that he be allowed to retain 
Case: 3:19-cr-00015-RAM-RM   Document #: 151   Filed: 01/20/22   Page 2 of 3
United States v. Jackson 
Case No. 3:19-cr-0015 
Order 
Page 3 of 3 
  
his own counsel and to relieve the Office of the Federal Public Defender from representing 
him. The Court granted that request. Thereafter, Attorney Manning entered an appearance 
on Jackson’s behalf. Jackson has not provided any explanation as to why he filed the motions 
pro se. Moreover, Jackson has not specifically requested to proceed with a “hybrid” 
representation. Accordingly, the Court is without any information to properly consider the 
merits of allowing Jackson to proceed with representing himself while also having retained 
counsel. Thus, because Jackson is currently represented by counsel and has not requested to 
proceed with a “hybrid” representation, the Court will grant the Government’s motion and 
will strike Jackson’s pro se filings from the record. 
The premises considered, it is hereby 
ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Strike, ECF No. 150, is GRANTED; and it 
is further 
ORDERED that Jackson’s pro se motions, filed at ECF Nos. 148 and 149, are DENIED 
without prejudice and STRICKEN from the record. 
 
Dated: January 20, 2022 
 
/s/__Robert A. Molloy____________ 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
ROBERT A. MOLLOY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Judge 
 
Case: 3:19-cr-00015-RAM-RM   Document #: 151   Filed: 01/20/22   Page 3 of 3