Jordan Thompson, a police officer, was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon after entering his estranged wife's military housing with a gun and threatening to shoot a man he found there. Thompson appealed two issues: first, the denial of his motion for a new trial based on post-trial evidence suggesting the victims colluded to lie about their relationship; and second, the district court's decision to impose a higher sentence because Thompson was a law enforcement officer. The district court had denied the new trial motion, finding Thompson lacked diligence in discovering the new evidence, and had explicitly stated that his status as an officer justified the sentence because more is expected of him. During the appeal, Thompson was released from prison, raising a potential mootness issue regarding his supervised release term.
The court first addressed mootness, holding that the appeal was not moot because Thompson remained on supervised release, which constitutes a continuing collateral consequence of the conviction. Regarding the new trial motion, the court applied the standard from United States v. Cordova, which requires a defendant to show that the failure to discover evidence was not caused by their own lack of diligence. The court found that Thompson knew of the potential witness, McPhaul, before trial because she was referenced in text messages he planned to use for impeachment. Since Thompson had the resources to contact her but did not do so until after the verdict, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. On the sentencing issue, the court applied plain error review. The government conceded that considering a defendant's occupation as a law enforcement officer, standing alone, is not a justifiable reason to increase a sentence. The court agreed, noting that while a judge may consider a defendant's history and characteristics, they cannot hold a defendant to a higher standard solely because of their profession. The district court's repeated emphasis on Thompson's job as the basis for the sentence created a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been lower absent this error. Consequently, the error seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.
The conviction stands, but the sentence is vacated. The case returns to the district court for resentencing where the judge must disregard Thompson's employment as a police officer. This decision clarifies that while a defendant's background is relevant, their professional status cannot be used as an aggravating factor to impose a harsher penalty than the law otherwise requires.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download