Thompson v. Weber, 841 N.W.2d 3

In 1994 Thompson was investigated and later tried for molestation, indecent exposure, and rape of related children (C.B., Ch.B., V.B.); at trial (1995) he was convicted for rape of C.B. and other offenses and acquitted on two rape charges.
C.B. initially disclosed exposure to porn and later, according to counseling records, disclosed digital vaginal penetration in May 1994 (shortly after a family meeting); those counseling records were not produced to defense counsel until 2011.
Defense at trial emphasized family contamination and investigative misconduct (chiefly by Chief Ensley) to impeach the cousins’ disclosures; defense believed C.B.’s rape claim arose later (December 1994) and therefore was more credible.
Trial counsel sought C.B.’s counseling records; court discovery orders were issued but the records were not produced, and the State’s file later went missing.
In a second habeas proceeding (after earlier habeas attempts), the habeas court found the counseling records were favorable and likely suppressed by the State but denied relief, concluding Thompson failed to show Brady prejudice; the Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Thompson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether suppression of C.B.’s counseling records violated Brady and requires relief	Records were favorable impeachment material (timing of disclosure, group therapy, hypnosis) that would have undermined C.B.’s credibility and likely led to acquittal on the rape charge	Either the State did not willfully suppress or, even if suppressed, the records were cumulative and would not have changed the verdict	Court: Records were favorable and likely suppressed, but Thompson failed to prove the requisite Brady prejudice (no reasonable probability of a different outcome)
Whether trial/habeas counsel were ineffective for failing to obtain the counseling records	Counsel’s failures prejudiced Thompson because the records contained critical impeachment evidence	Any deficiency did not produce sufficient prejudice to meet Strickland standard; easier to resolve on lack of prejudice	Court: Declined to find ineffective assistance on the merits because Thompson could not establish the required prejudice

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s suppression of favorable evidence violates due process when material)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality standard: reasonable probability that disclosure would have produced a different result)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady three-part test: favorable, suppressed, prejudicial)
State v. Leisinger, 670 N.W.2d 371 (S.D. 2003) (South Dakota application of Brady/Strickler principles)