United States v. Thompson.
No. 25-3019. 4/13/2026. D.Kan. Judge Eid. Assault With a Dangerous Weapon—Sentencing—Defendant’s Occupation as a Police Officer—Motion for New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence.
April 13, 2026
Thompson and Haraughty were married in 2021 and have one child, P.T. Haraughty was in the US Army and lived at Fort Riley during the time period relevant here. Throughout their marriage, Thompson and Haraughty were often separated, and their relationship was marked by distrust, alleged infidelity, and divorce threats. Notably, Thompson suspected that Haraughty was having an affair with fellow Army member Libbrecht. In 2023, Thompson moved to Galena to work as an officer with the Galena Police Department. But he kept a key to Haraughty’s home, and P.T. split time between Fort Riley and Galena. Haraughty was supposed to spend Thanksgiving Day 2023 with Thompson, but canceled that plan and told Thompson she had to work. However, Haraughty spent Thanksgiving at her home with Libbrecht. When Thompson found out that Haraughty lied to him, he used his key to enter Haraughty’s house. Thompson purportedly had a gun, which he pointed either at or in the direction of Libbrecht, whom he told to leave the house or he would shoot. Haraughty also testified that Thompson pointed the gun at her. After arguing with Haraughty, Thompson left the house with P.T. Haraughty then called police, who issued an Amber Alert, and Thompson was subsequently detained.
Thompson was charged with (1) assault with a dangerous weapon against Libbrecht in the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States; (2) assault with a dangerous weapon against Haraughty in the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and (3) domestic violence against Haraughty in the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States. A jury convicted Thompson of the assault count against Libbrecht but acquitted him of the assault and domestic violence counts against Haraughty. As relevant here, Thompson filed a posttrial motion for a new trial, based on a posttrial interview with a witness whose testimony could suggest that Haraughty and Libbrecht colluded to lie before the jury about their relationship. The court denied the motion, finding that Thompson’s failure to interview the witness before trial constituted a lack of diligence. At sentencing, Thompson requested a year and a day of imprisonment with two years of supervised release, and the government requested 28 months with three years of supervised release. The district court noted Thompson and Haraughty’s troubled relationship as a mitigating consideration and cited two aggravating factors: bringing a firearm onto a federal military installation, and being a law enforcement officer. The court sentenced Thompson to 24 months of incarceration followed by two years of supervised release.
On appeal, Thompson challenged the denial of his motion for a new trial and his sentence. Because Thompson was released from federal custody during the pendency of this appeal, the Tenth Circuit first considered whether the appeal was moot. The Tenth Circuit decided that the matter was not moot because (1) Thompson’s new-trial-motion appeal directly challenges his conviction, and (2) his unexpired term of supervised release could be affected by the appeal’s outcome.
On the merits, when a new trial motion is based on newly discovered evidence, United States v. Cordova, 25 F.4th 817, 827 (10th Cir. 2022), requires a defendant to show that (1) the evidence was discovered after trial, (2) the failure to learn of the evidence was not caused by the defendant’s lack of diligence, (3) the new evidence is not simply impeaching, (4) the new evidence is material to the principal issues, and (5) the nature of the new evidence would probably produce an acquittal in a new trial. Here, Thompson knew of and had the resources to contact the witness before trial. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Thompson failed to satisfy the second of the new trial standard.
Thompson also argued that the district court erred in relying on his professional status as a police officer when imposing a higher sentence. The Tenth Circuit reviewed for plain error because Thompson did not raise the issue below. The government conceded that the district court plainly erred by considering Thompson’s occupation as a law enforcement officer during sentencing, so Thompson had to show that (1) the district court’s consideration of his professional status as a police officer affected his substantial rights, and (2) the purported error seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. Here, the court made repeated statements justifying Thompson’s sentence by reference to his position as a police officer, and it weighed Thompson’s mitigating circumstances against the aggravating factors before deciding on the sentence. Removing one of the aggravating factors from consideration thus creates a reasonable probability that a new balancing of factors would result in a lower sentence. Accordingly, Thompson showed that his substantial rights were affected and that the error affected the fairness of the proceedings.
The denial of the new trial motion was affirmed. The case was remanded with instructions to vacate Thompson’s sentence and resentence him.