Trial of Jessie Jennings

by Raul Fernandez

(SCOTTSBLUFF, Neb.) — On September 16, 2025, Jessie Jennings was found guilty for allegations that happened earlier in 2025 between March and mid-April.

Dave Eubanks, county attorney, during his opening statement brought forth allegations of:

• Child enticement via electronic devices
• Possession of child pornography
• Child abuse
• Contributing to delinquency

Alleging that on or about April 6, 2025, the defendant used a cell phone app “Snapchat” to communicate with a juvenile who was 15 years old while the defendant was 19. During their communication, pictures of their private areas were exchanged before escalating to a possible meet up. Prosecutors are alleging that the juvenile’s age was confirmed with Mr. Jennings prior to the messages, and the request for pictures on either side.

The Defense argues that the juvenile lied about his age, and that by having tattoos, he was led to believe he was 18. Micheal Miester, the defense attorney, is also alleging that the juvenile was actually the aggressor, adding that neither the meet up, nor any actual sexual contact was ever made.

Witnesses for the trial included the victim who is 15, the mother of the victim, Investigator Shannon with Scotts Bluff County Sheriff’s Department, Mrs. Rhoades, a digital forensic examiner for the Nebraska State Patrol, Jennings sister, an investigator for the Scotts Bluff County Attorneys Office, James Jackson, and a family friend who was there when Jessie and the victim first met.

Most of the evidence introduced during the trial came from Snapchat messages, including two key photo exchanges, one from each party, as well as testimony from the witnesses.

The Snapchat messages continue as Jessie then makes plans for the two males to meet under the bridge by WTT.

Jessie recommended that the minor victim ask his family friend to drop him off at the zoo and take the path that leads to a walkway along the North Platte River until he reaches the bridge by WTT. The victim replied that he didn’t think his mom would let him and that he’d have to ask for permission, but Jessie’s response was that he should tell his mom that he’d just be going for a walk. Then later he was told not to tell anyone.

On May 1, 2025, Jessie volunteered to go to the station and speak with detectives after his Miranda rights were read to him. When Jessie first entered the interview room, he took off his jewelry and told detectives that he did so just in case he goes to jail. During the interview detectives made several comments about Jessie’s broad answers and constant use of “I don’t recall” while persisting that Jessie initiated the messages on Snapchat.

After the interview Jessie’s phone was also taken and sent to the Nebraska State Patrol. Both phones had their data extracted and were returned to the county attorney’s office, along with hard drives containing the metadata for each phone.

The metadata also affirmed the date and time the pictures were sent.

During closing arguments, Dave Eubanks made several key points to support the charges:

• Child Enticement using an electronic device was supported by the Snapchat messages that showed they were using cell phones to communicate. 
• Possession of child pornography was supported by the metadata that confirmed Jessie received a picture of the victim’s privates on his device
• Child abuse was supported by the messages that Jessie sent to the victim. Dave Eubanks expressed that Jessie placed a juvenile in a situation for sexual assault because according to Nebraska law, no child under 16 can give consent.

He then proceeded to address whether or not Jessie knew the victim’s actual age. Ending his closing argument, he stated there was enough evidence to prove Jessie knew his actual age.

Micheal Miester’s closing arguments depended on a comment made by Detective Dodge while interviewing Jessie, which was “I know you didn’t know his exact age”.

The jury consisted of 11 females and 1 male. During the trial, there was one juror who was released after she recognized one of the witnesses and admitted she could not put aside her biasness. She claimed she had insider knowledge that the witness was caught lying several times before in the past.

The jury returned a guilty verdict in 58 minutes.