Kevin Hart‘s former friend J.T. Jackson is no longer facing a felony extortion charge in the comedian’s sex tape scandal. In a shocking turn of events, the Los Angeles District Attorney has decided to drop the extortion charge against J.T.
On Friday, September 27, the L.A. Country D.A. filed documents explaining that prosecutors did not have sufficient evidence to convict the part-time actor with the criminal charge. The DA explains that they investigated a “declaration” or tip that called into question the statement given to them as the extortionist threat to Kevin.
J.T., who asked $5 million in exchange for keeping the sex tape concealed, made some demands on various websites and blogs, but never directly to Kevin or his team. He wrote, “Give me $5 Million or I’m releasing the video,” but that was posted in the public comments of Kevin’s Instagram post apologizing to his family for his infidelities.
That didn’t count as a direct message to the actor. As the DA points out, after reviewing the new evidence, they found that it “materially undermines the People’s theory on Count One [extortion,] which requires proof of specific intent.”
The prosecutors, however, will still charge J.T. for other crimes, including 2 counts of unauthorized use of personal identifying information, as well as attempted concealing and selling stolen property. He had previously denied the allegations of an extortion attempt.
Meanwhile, Montia Sabbag, the model featured with Kevin in the sex tape, recently filed a lawsuit against the funnyman, accusing him of secretly recording their consensual intercourse in 2017 without her consent. She claims that the sex tape, which was eventually published online in September 2017, “has caused and continues to cause Ms. Sabbag great emotional distress and embarrassment.”
A California judge has dismissed the lawsuit for “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” and for “lack of diversity jurisdiction.” However, the model has until September 30 to file a First Amended Complaint with the Federal Court to show that the lawsuit meets the requirements for subject matter or diversity jurisdiction.