Thompson v. United States, 436 F. App'x 669

Background

Thompson was convicted on nineteen counts, including wire fraud, use of fire to commit a felony, bankruptcy fraud, and money laundering, for arson to collect insurance after his mother Carmen Thompson’s death, and was sentenced to 190 years; conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
Thompson filed a §2255 petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and a Brady violation; the district court denied an evidentiary hearing and the petition, and a certificate of appealability was granted on the IAC issue.
Key underlying facts involve Thompson reaping increased life insurance after moving his 89-year-old mother to Chicago, concealing assets, and the August 2002 basement fire near his mother’s body with evidence suggesting arson, while Thompson claimed suicide as a defense.
The government presented arson-based testimony through Fire Marshal Wiley-Earls; Thompson’s team did not call an arson expert and suggested a suicide defense; the defense introduced limited corroboration through witnesses including Thompson and his sister.
The district court concluded the suicide strategy was objectively reasonable; Thompson later submitted a 2009 fire-expert report (Dr. Beyler) arguing undetermined cause and challenging Wiley-Earls’s conclusions; the government attached an affidavit from Thompson’s trial attorney.
On review, the Seventh Circuit applied Strickland v. Washington and held the defense strategy reasonable, finding no deficient performance or prejudice, and affirmed the district court’s denial of the §2255 petition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel’s investigation was deficient	Thompson	Thompson	No; strategy reasonable given the evidence
Whether the suicide defense was an objectively reasonable trial strategy	Thompson's strategy favored suicide defense	Counsel reasonably chose suicide defense	Yes; objective reasonableness supported
Whether the lack of an arson expert and failure to cross-examine/obtain testing undermines performance	Counsel should have consulted an arson expert	Chosen defense did not require an arson expert	No; not deficient under prevailing norms given strategy
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing	Evidentiary hearing warranted to resolve factual disputes	Record supported denial	No; no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
United States v. Recendiz, 557 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2009) (highly deferential review; wide latitude for trial strategies)
Ellison v. Acevedo, 593 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2010) (duty to consult an expert when needed under Strickland)
Dugas v. Coplan, 428 F.3d 317 (1st Cir. 2005) (question is whether defense investigation into arson, not arson defense itself, was reasonable)
Richey v. Bradshaw, 498 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2007) (defense must investigate whether arson conclusion is attackable; failure to provide reasonable alternative defense deficient)
Showers v. Beard, 635 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2011) (expert consultation when proposed by defense can be critical to strategy)
Bond v. United States, 77 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir. 1996) (no hindsight reconstruction of strategy; evaluating trial decisions)
Reyes v. United States, 270 F.3d 1158 (7th Cir. 2001) (circumstantial evidence and standard for evaluating verdicts)