In Wisconsin, Lexus Ford was held on $250,000 cash bond as prosecutors outlined evidence tying him to the car allegedly used in the Aug. 28 attack.
MILWAUKEE, Wis. — Prosecutors have charged Lexus Ford with three felonies in a shooting that killed Michael T. Jackson and wounded another man, setting up a case built around circumstantial evidence, witness accounts, vehicle tracking and Ford’s statements to detectives about a dispute involving his Jeep.
Ford, 34, faces first-degree reckless homicide with use of a dangerous weapon, first-degree reckless injury with use of a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. A judge set his cash bond at $250,000 during an initial Milwaukee County court appearance Sept. 10, according to FOX6. The charges followed a nearly two-week investigation into the Aug. 28 shooting near North 27th and West Walnut streets. None of the charges amounts to a finding of guilt, and prosecutors must prove the case through the judicial process.
The homicide count arises from Jackson’s death. Police found the 39-year-old suffering from multiple gunshot wounds after officers were dispatched to the neighborhood at about 3:45 a.m. He was pronounced dead roughly 30 minutes later. A second man, 33, had been struck in his lower body and survived. The reckless-injury charge concerns that second victim, while the firearm-possession count is based on the state’s allegation that Ford was legally prohibited from possessing a gun because of a prior felony conviction.
Although Ford was charged with first-degree reckless homicide, the public reporting does not describe an intentional-homicide charge. That difference matters to how the state has framed its allegations, but it does not reduce prosecutors’ burden to prove every required element of the offense. News accounts of the complaint describe Ford as being accused of participating in gunfire directed toward Jackson and his friend after a dispute over Ford’s Jeep. The exact legal conclusions will depend on evidence admitted in court rather than the narrative contained in a charging document.
The state’s reconstruction begins with the surviving victim. He told detectives he was working at a food truck when Jackson arrived. After they talked, the two began walking toward a vehicle. The worker said a sedan pulled next to them and the passenger window opened. He then heard several shots, estimated at about seven or eight, before the car left. The man discovered that he had been wounded twice. His account describes the attack but, in the published summaries of the complaint, does not amount to an eyewitness identification of Ford as the shooter.
That makes the investigation of the car particularly important. Police reviewing surveillance video said they saw a vehicle circle the neighborhood before the shooting and leave afterward. Investigators believed it was a tan Ford Focus manufactured between 2005 and 2007. A black rear bumper made the car more distinctive. Police also had a temporary plate to work with, and license-plate reader technology helped them follow the registration history. Records eventually connected the Focus to Ford.
The connection was not based solely on a database result. Investigators learned that the same car had been stopped on July 29 while Ford’s brother was driving, according to the complaint. The brother was arrested in Waukesha and remained incarcerated on Aug. 28. Authorities said the Focus was later released to Ford, identified as its owner. Those facts allowed prosecutors to argue that Ford had access to the vehicle during the period when surveillance cameras allegedly captured it near the shooting.
The crime scene provided another piece of physical evidence. Investigators recovered 19 spent 9 mm casings. That number exceeds the surviving victim’s estimate of the shots he remembered hearing, which would not be unusual during a sudden attack. The published accounts reviewed do not report a publicly disclosed ballistics match tying those casings to a specific recovered firearm. As a result, the vehicle evidence and witness statements described in the complaint take on added importance in connecting Ford to the gunfire.
Prosecutors also allege a motive based on Ford’s Jeep. During an interview with detectives, Ford said he had been selling liquor from the vehicle and had lost his key fob. He came to believe Jackson had taken it, according to reports based on the complaint. Ford said he later found his Jeep nearby and saw people removing property. He identified Jackson as one of the people he believed was involved and described himself as angry about what he had found. CBS 58 reported that Ford also said a gun had been among property connected with the Jeep.
That claimed motive has an important evidentiary limit. Ford’s belief that Jackson took the vehicle, keys or property is not the same as proof that Jackson actually committed a theft. The public reports reviewed do not identify a theft charge against Jackson or an independent adjudication finding that he stole Ford’s Jeep. Because Jackson died in the shooting, he cannot answer Ford’s allegation. Responsible treatment of the case therefore requires separating the prosecution’s asserted motive from any claim that Jackson’s role in the alleged theft has been established.
The state’s evidence also includes statements attributed to Ford after the shooting. His former girlfriend told investigators that Ford contacted her and appeared upset. According to the complaint, Ford indicated that he had shot and injured someone and responded affirmatively when asked whether the person died. She said he also talked about fleeing. In a separate jail conversation reviewed by investigators, Ford’s brother and the former girlfriend discussed the missing Jeep, property inside it and the fallout from whatever had happened that night.
Those accounts may be significant to prosecutors because they potentially connect Ford’s emotional state, the Jeep dispute and knowledge of a shooting. At the same time, statements relayed through another person can be challenged in court. Defense attorneys can question a witness’s memory, interpretation and credibility, and judges decide what evidence is admissible. The complaint establishes probable cause for a prosecution; it is not a substitute for trial evidence or a verdict.
Ford’s own interview with detectives gives prosecutors another potential source of admissible statements. Reports say he identified Jackson from a photograph and acknowledged the dispute involving the Jeep. Investigators said he explained losing the key fob and later seeing people around the recovered vehicle. Those admissions may help establish a relationship between Ford and Jackson on the night in question even if the shooting itself was not captured in a way that clearly shows the person firing.
The case also contains a custody issue beyond the new charges. CBS 58 reported that Ford was already free on bail in an unrelated Waukesha County drug case when Jackson was killed. A pending prosecution cannot be used to prove that someone committed another crime, but a defendant’s existing release status can become relevant when a court determines bail and conditions in a new case. After Ford’s initial appearance, FOX6 reported that a separate bond hearing was scheduled for Sept. 16 and a preliminary hearing for Sept. 17.
Jackson’s family had learned far less about the investigation when they spoke publicly on the morning of his death. They told CBS 58 that Jackson was killed on his son’s birthday and described him as a loving man and father. At that point, police were still saying only that a person in a vehicle had fired on two men. The eventual charges added a detailed prosecution theory, but they did not change the family’s immediate loss or convert allegations into settled facts.
The prosecution will ultimately have to connect several categories of evidence into one legally sufficient case: the surviving victim’s description, the 19 casings, surveillance recordings, the temporary plate, records showing Ford’s access to the Focus, statements attributed to him and his own account of the Jeep dispute. Any weaknesses or inconsistencies in those links can be contested by the defense. Any evidence not yet made public may also change how the case is understood as proceedings continue.
Ford’s charges remained pending in the latest public reporting located for this article. No final verdict or other disposition was found through Oct. 21. Until the court process resolves the allegations, the criminal complaint represents the prosecution’s version of the events surrounding Jackson’s death, and Ford is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Author note: Last updated October 21, 2026.