I don't think the jury should even matter. They determine the facts of the case, not the law. The fact is, he has what the law disallows. But the reality is, the law is totally illegal.
I would be shocked if he didn't win his first appeal.
(Some other details seem shady. Is receiving books in the mail grounds for the warrant used to search his house? Were the obscene pictures in "plain view"? If this is what I can think of, having never studied law, you'd think someone's whose job it is to think of stuff like this would do better.)
IANAL. Having said that, there are a few avenues for appeal. For instance, if the defendant's lawyer was provably incompetent or did not disclose a conflict of interest against his client. Or if the prosecution withheld evidence that would have prevented the defendant from taking the plea.
In most jurisdictions, the defendant could also opt for a bench trial, which would have just the judge and no jury.
I would be shocked if he didn't win his first appeal.
(Some other details seem shady. Is receiving books in the mail grounds for the warrant used to search his house? Were the obscene pictures in "plain view"? If this is what I can think of, having never studied law, you'd think someone's whose job it is to think of stuff like this would do better.)