Law&Crime Sidebar - Teacher Accused of Using AI to Create Child Porn Makes Stunning Decision

Episode Date: November 27, 2025

Former Mississippi teacher Wilson Jones used artificial intelligence to create explicit videos of his own middle school students, a scheme uncovered by a school monitoring system that flagged a "severe sexual alert" from his computer. Investigators say he used the students' real faces and typed detailed, explicit prompts into an AI website to generate the material. With his federal trial approaching, Jones made a shocking decision that would change his case forever. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down the horrifying evidence and the teacher's last-minute plea with former federal prosecutor and law professor Mary Fan.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Black Friday has come early at Cozy Earth! Right now, you can head to https://cozyearth.com and use code LAWANDCRIME on top of their sitewide sale — giving you up to 40% off in savings. These deals won’t last, so start your holiday shopping today! And if you get a Post-Purchase Survey, be sure to mention you heard about Cozy Earth right here!HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Big development in the case of the teacher who used AI to create sexually explicit content of his teenage students. He just made a decision that has changed the trajectory of this whole story. We're going to go through this case piece by piece and what this decision means. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Okay, so before we jump into all this, can you believe that the holidays are here?

It's like, weren't we just in summer? Anyway, if you're thinking about gifts, I got to tell you about cozy earth. I wore these the other night. They are amazing. Their bamboo pajama set, it is made with a soft, stretched knit that sleeps cool, but it's still cozy for those winter nights and the bubble cuddle blanket. The textured faux fur, it is plush, it is luxurious, it's the ultimate holiday gift for even the toughest people to shop for. You know who those people are. Well, Cozy Earth also has a hundred-night

sleep trial and a 10-year warranty. So you can shop and gift risk-free. And right now, Black Friday has come early at Cozy Earth. You stack my code, long crime on top of their site-wide sale for up to 40% off. So wrap the ones you love in luxury with Cozy Earth. So if you've been watching us here on Sidebar for a bit, you might remember this shocking case out of Corinth, Mississippi. This is where a middle school teacher was accused of using artificial intelligence AI to create explicit videos of his own students. Shocking, right? Shocking, but I mean, this is the new potential reality we live in.

Well, here's the thing. We've got a major update. That teacher, Wilson Jones, has just made a shocking decision that will change the course of this case forever. Jones was scheduled to go to court up against some very serious federal charges, that he possessed and produced child pornography, that he used his school-issued laptop to essentially create obscene visual depictions of minor, specifically AI generated explicit material that featured the faces of his own students. This is a case, not surprisingly, that sparked

outrage, especially when it was revealed that the school superintendent allegedly knew about this and let Jones just quietly resign instead of immediately reporting him to authorities. He has been indicted too, by the way. So what was the decision with respect to Jones? What are we talking about? Well, To understand just how significant this is, you need the full story of how this all came to light. This is a case that involves a school monitoring system, specific AI prompts, and a month's long gap before law enforcement ever got involved. Here's what happened. This all started back in November 19, 2024 at Mississippi's Corinth Middle School. According to the complaint in this case, at 117 in the afternoon, a monitoring system called the Bark app, which scans the school district.

network for illicit content sent out a, quote, severe alert. And this was tagged as sexual, and it was coming from teacher Wilson Jones School issued computer. So the principal here, Chris Killow, got a text about it. He looked into it, contacted the district's tech director, who was able to pull three videos directly from Jones computer. And the tech director found out that Jones had apparently sent this content to his personal Google drive, which which is what triggered the alert in the first place. Now these videos were of students, and they showed what were described as known Corinth students engaging in inappropriate behavior, including kissing and exposing themselves,

but none of this was real, because here's a key. The website used to create these images was right there in the file name at the bottom of the images. It was an AI site called hailuo. AI. Now, the very next morning, what happens? The principal and the vice principal, they meet with Jones. They had already taken his laptop. And right there, in that meeting, Jones admitted it. He said he created videos using AI, though he claimed they, quote, weren't sexual. He confirmed he used this website, said he got the original images from social media. He even

acknowledged that one of the people in the images was a local student. But here's the thing. Talk about technology. Investigators would later find the exact keystrokes he tighted into that AI system. The prompts were detailed and they were very explicit, describing, quote, two girls posing in each other's arms stopped to kiss, instructing the AI to have them, quote, roll up their baggy dresses to reveal each other's picture perfect bodies, garmentless. Now, Jones resigned from the school just one day after that meeting on November 21st, But here is the part that really is controversial, aside from everything else.

This was in November. The Mississippi Department of Education didn't find out about this until the end of January and the Corinth Police Department and the FBI didn't serve a subpoena and seize all of the evidence, the laptops, the videos, everything until March 3rd of this year. So when the FBI finally reviewed the material, they identified eight underage victims. These are kids from the school between 14 and 16 years old. The feds concluded that these were AI-generated videos that used the likenesses of known children from the Corinth school district. And that evidence led to a federal indictment, setting the stage for a dramatic courtroom battle.

But now, Wilson Jones has made his choice. So what did he do? He took a plea. Now, this wasn't just a simple guilty plea. Now, the details of this agreement, they are fascinating. They carry huge consequences to help break all this down. and welcome back on to Sidebar Special Guest, Professor Mary Fan. She's the Jack R. MacDonald Endowed Chair at the University of Washington School of Law, a former federal prosecutor, expert in criminal law and evidence.

Thank you so much for coming back here, Professor Fan. Pleasure. So I want to start with this headline. Wilson Jones pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography. The indictment had two counts. The second was for production. What's the strategic thinking here for both sides? Why agree to plead guilty to one count, not the other?

Sure. It's a very common practice for defendants to get what we call charge bargains. A charge bargain is the prosecutor controls what charges to bring. And as a sweetener to get somebody to plead guilty and spare people a trial, the cost, the expense, and having their images potentially erred to others, the government may agree to dismiss one or more charges. and have the defendant plea to one charge, as you see here. And the penalty is severe.

I mean, the penalties he's now facing for this single possession count. Again, let's look at the documents. So the plea agreement states that he faces, and I'm quoting this directly, maximum possible penalties of not more than 10 years incarceration, not less than five years, and not more than life supervised released, not more than a $250,000 fine, an additional assessment of $5,000, a $17,000, possession assessment, restitution as appropriate to the victim or victims, and a mandatory special assessment of $100. Professor Fan, what time do you think he's going to get?

You know, I'd have to know his criminal history, because the actual time that people get depends on any prior history that they may have. So we calculate the actual range based on factors like where they aren't probation and parole as the applicable sentencing guidelines range for the offense. So you often will see. very high statutory maximums for an offense that are theoretically possible. But the actual range is going to be based on a recommended guidelines range. The life supervised release, the requirement that has to register as a sex offender. I mean, let's just go there. The document's very clear. It says the defendant is required to register as a sex offender, keep the registration current in each

jurisdiction where the defendant resides, where the defendant is an employee, and where the defendant is a student pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. So to register as a sex offender, maybe supervised release, what does that mean for him? What does a life look like there? I mean, sex offender registration is our modern day life sentence in terms of just the stigma that somebody bears for the rest of their life. It's going to affect not just employment prospects and certainly employment prospects for someone who used to be a teacher who worked with children, but also the experience of being able

to move into an apartment, move into a neighborhood, and join a community. It's going to affect the individual for the rest of their lives. And then there's the matter of restitution. So the agreement says that he agrees to, quote, make full restitution to all minor victims of his offenses. And it specifically notes that restitution is, quote, not limited to the count of conviction. What is he looking at there? Other offenses may not be the basis of conviction under the plea agreement, but there could be other harms that are done, and there could be that are not actually within the four corners of the plea agreement, but the defendants agreeing to address all the harms, not just the ones that are specific to the charge to which you pled guilty. Now, while I have you here, I want to get into some more of the context of this to understand exactly what is the evidence that led to this plea deal, because we need to rewind to the beginning. the criminal complaint lays it all out.

So it starts with this single digital alert, the affidavit states that on November 19, 2024, the school's monitoring system, the bark app, triggered a, and again, I'm quoting this directly, severe alert tagged as sexual at 1.17 p.m. from Wilson Jones computer. Now, from your experience, that feels pretty concrete. I would be very interesting in a trial

how a defense attorney would try to argue, against something like that. It seems like a key piece of evidence and a direct piece of evidence. You know, I mean, there's always going to be, defense attorneys have to be creative. And there's always going to be potential avenues to challenge, especially automated alerts. Because, you know, we know technology makes errors. You may be familiar with other cases where we've used technology, automated technology, to send alerts, for example, a bag of Doritos being mistaken for a gun by a high schooler.

is an example that he recently hit the headlines. So you can challenge the accuracy behind automated alerts. And then the school's tech director was able to access Jones computer, found the source. The affidavit says, frames stated that Jones sent the content to his personal Google drive, which triggered the bark alert. The videos depicted, known Corinth students engaging in inappropriate behavior, including kissing and exposing themselves. The website used to create these images, the one I mentioned before,

was listed in the file name at the bottom of the images. As I'm listening to this and as it's being laid out, Professor, it does make it more understandable why he would have pled guilty here and not taking this to trial. Am I totally off? I mean, absolutely. I mean, what you have here are images. You have images of discernible students who are engaging in activity

that's clearly prescribed under federal. child pornography statutes. You know, I mean, when the evidence is so strong and you also have the electronic trail that the defendant even used school equipment to transmit this material, not only is the evidence really strong for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's also really problematic to air before a jury to see the full scope of what he's been doing. Yeah, and it doesn't help that he apparently admitted that he's, created the videos using AI, claimed it wasn't sexual. By the way, generally speaking,

this kind of case, when we first covered it, it was groundbreaking. I mean, I hadn't heard of a case like this before, let alone a teacher using AI to create images of the students in these situations. It's kind of insane to be thinking about. But the law is going to be changing on this, right? I imagine this is not the first and only case we're going to see. It may get even worse. Absolutely. The law is changing. For example, Colorado actually had a case where individual actually morphed images from a couple of fellow students to create a simulation of intimate activity. And the question was, does do the existing laws cover such AI generated material? And bottom line, Colorado law, the Colorado Supreme Court has recently intervened interpreting new laws to not apply retroactively to conduct that occurred before the new law, but saying in the future, such AI-generated content would be a crime.

Is there any way to hold the AI companies liable to make sure that their systems are not used to do this? that's a really interesting question right to hold companies liable for misuse of their technology there are these are major challenges because think about AI is just another product a product that can cause harm like a knife could cause harm like a car could cause harm it could also do a lot of beneficial things as well and so the challenges is with any sort of products liability situation trying to hold the manufacturer of a product that has many legitimate uses liable for a subset of misuse. I mean, I think the analogy is similar if you're going to try to hold a carmaker. And we've seen, by the way, attempts to this, like we've seen attempts to hold carmakers liable for being easily stealable

and therefore being a right target to be stolen, for example. So, I mean, there certainly could be attempts by creative plaintiff's attorneys, especially in the civil context for liability. No, that's a good point. You know, Professor, this case has another major dimension that sparked outrage. It was the actions or the alleged actions of then-superintendant Edward Childress. So the indictment against him alleges that after learning of Jones' conduct, he, and I'm quoting from the document here, quote, did conceal the same by permitting Wilson Jones to resign his position as a teacher at the Corinth School District and misrepresenting to the Corinth School Board, the reason for Wilson Jones' resignation from his position as a teacher

at the Corinth School District, and did not, as soon as possible, make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States. So he's basically been indicted on hindering prosecution. What do you make of that charge? What do you make of that allegation? And what would prosecutors need to prove that this wasn't, that this delay wasn't poor judgment or trying to get more facts, but this was a crime? Yeah. So, I mean, this is an individual who held a position of trust, had special duties because of that position of trust. And according to the allegations, at least, affirmatively took steps like misrepresentation to conceal harm that was done to students to whom he's entrusted as a fiduciary. So I think there's some really compelling elements to this charge.

You know, in American law, we usually don't hold people responsible for omissions to act. We usually punish commission. However, one of the exceptions is when somebody is in such a position of trust. And then we have here not just omissions, but also some affirmative commissions to conceal the tracks of the offense. That's a really good point because, unfortunately, I cover a number of stories of child abuse, all different kinds, in schools or education. educators, instructors, things of that nature, you can't automatically arrest the principal or the superintendent because they didn't follow it. They didn't notice it. They didn't report it. It has to be something blatant. It has to be something. So if the allegation is that he misrepresented

what was going on, that's what makes it rise to a different level here. And I do wonder if you have Jones pleading guilty, how does that affect Childress's case? Well, I mean, you have some elements established, right, potentially by the guilty plea. You have elements established that this material meets a definition of child pornography under federal law, for example. And so certainly, and you have the establishment that there was a crime to be covered up. And so that helps facilitate prosecution there for covering up such a crime. You already established that there was a crime. I have a question for you.

I don't know if it's a legal question or how it happens, but I have to get your opinion on this. So in a final shocking, let's call it post script to this story, we learned that after resigning, Wilson Jones, the guy who just pled guilty, Wilson Jones, managed to get another job working with the state's most vulnerable children. From our previous reporting, we learned that Jones was hired by the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services as a social service specialist. And in his application, he reportedly asked the agency not to contact his former employer at the Corinth School District. How is this possible, Professor? Wow. You know, I'd have to look at the entire employment form, but I would wonder one of my first

questions and any prosecutor's first question might be, did he affirmatively misrepresent conduct? A lot of times some of these employment forms where you're in a sensitive position of trust with vulnerable individuals will ask if you've ever committed certain kinds of wrongdoing. And so one of the first things I want to see is if there's such a question to that effect, if there was any affirmative misrepresentation. This would be a misrepresentation on a form to a government agency, which can carry its own criminal consequences. But it is remarkable that he was able to secure such a job.

You know, Jones was facing a lot here. Not only the federal charges, he was indicted on three counts of depicting child engaging in sexual conduct at the state level. And as we mentioned, he's now going to be having his formal sentencing on March 2, 2026, where a judge will decide what that fate should be. It does make me wonder if the judge is going to make a statement with this, if the judge is going to go on the higher end to say, not only is this deplorable and unacceptable, but maybe to deter others who would use such technology to do this. Because it feels, I hate to say, it feels like you can use this technology pretty easily to create this kind of content. That's right.

I mean, there are guardrails potential on this technology, but they are circumventable by tech savvy people. And so, you know, sentencing is supposed to be individual. It's individual to the person before the court. It's going to be based on their admission. They're owning up a responsibility, their attempts to repair the harm, their prior history, et cetera. But certainly another factor is what we call general deterrence, which is what is the deterrent message to the community as well. And so that could be a relevant factor, the idea that we want to send a message that this is not just plain

around with AI, that this has potentially serious harms, and we want to recognize the fullness of the harms, too. In this case, real students who are impacted. Well, we will see what he is sentenced to. We will see what happens with Childress's case as well. Mary Fan, Professor Mary Fan, thank you so much for taking the time. Really appreciate it. Pleasure. Thanks for having me. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can follow me on X or Instagram. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.