By Robert J. Romano, JD, LLM, St. John’s University
In the federal criminal case of United States v. Thompson, No. 24-11009, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the convictions of Samuel Arthur Thompson on ten federal criminal counts arising from computer hacking, child pornography offenses, firearm possession, and violations of federal sex-offender registration requirements.[1] In the opinion authored by Circuit Judge Britt C. Grant, a unanimous panel rejected Thompson’s challenges concerning his waiver of counsel, access to discovery, denial of a trial continuance, the use of closed-circuit television testimony by a child witness, and the denial of his efforts to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his home.
What is interesting about this case is that it began with a series of disturbances to the Jacksonville Jaguars’ stadium videoboard system during the team’s home game in the 2018 NFL season. Thompson, who had worked as an independent contractor for the Jaguars, helped design, install, and operate the stadium’s jumbotron system. The Jaguars, however, terminated Thompson after becoming aware that he had been previously convicted of sexually assaulting a minor child. Shortly after his termination, the Jaguars experienced several unexplained videoboard outages and other disruptions. In a bold move, Thompson contacted his former coworkers and indicated that he knew what had caused the disruptions and could easily correct the problem.
The Jaguars, ignoring Thompson’s offers, eventually discovered that someone was remotely accessing the videoboard through a decommissioned computer that was able to access the videoboard network. The organization created a technological “honeypot” designed to identify the intruder and the information collected during a subsequent attempted intrusion led the team to Thompson’s IP address. From this information, the FBI was able to secure a search warrant for Thompson’s residence where federal agents seized numerous electronic devices, including computers, hard drives, an iPhone, and an iPad, as well as a firearm. The investigation initially confirmed his involvement with the Jaguars videoboard issues but further forensic examination of his electronic devices, including an additional computer Thompson voluntarily directed agents to that was located in an outside storage unit, uncovered extensive quantities of child pornography and evidence that Thompson had produced sexually explicit material involving children.
The accumulated evidence resulted in what was eventually a second superseding ten-count indictment that included possessing and receiving child pornography, intentionally causing damage to protected computers, failing to comply with sex-offender registration requirements concerning international travel, possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, enticing minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions, and committing certain offenses while required to register as a sex offender. Following a nine-day trial, the jury convicted Thompson on every count as outlined in the indictment, wherein the Federal District Court subsequently sentenced him to 2,640 months’ imprisonment, followed by lifetime supervised release.[2] Thompson, not happy with spending the rest of his remaining years in prison, decided to appeal his case to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Thompson’s principal argument on appeal centered around his own decision to represent himself during the proceedings. Under Faretta v. California, a criminal defendant may waive their Sixth Amendment right to counsel if the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.[3] Thompson did not challenge his original waiver of counsel, which followed a detailed Faretta hearing. Instead, he argued that the waiver became ineffective when the government filed its second superseding indictment, adding four counts and increasing his potential sentencing exposure.
The Eleventh Circuit, however, rejected this argument, holding that the central issue is whether the defendant understands the risks of self-representation, rather than whether a trial court repeats a particular procedure whenever the indictment changes. At Thompson’s subsequent arraignment on the second superseding indictment, the government explained each of the ten charges he faced and the corresponding potential penalties, including possible terms of imprisonment, supervised release, and fines. Thompson confirmed that he understood the charges and penalties, while also reaffirming his decision to proceed without counsel. As a result, the Eleventh Circuit held that the record demonstrated a continuing knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel and that the Sixth Amendment did not require an entirely new formal Faretta hearing simply because a superseding indictment increased his exposure.
Thompson also appealed the use of two-way closed-circuit television for one of the child witnesses that testified against him. The Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause generally protects a defendant’s right to confront witnesses face-to-face. However, the court explained that this right is not absolute and when necessary, measures can be utilized to protect child witnesses from serious trauma. The Eleventh Circuit relied on both the case of Maryland v. Craig and federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 3509, which permit exceptions to face-to-face confrontation when a case-specific finding establishes that a child would suffer significant trauma or be unable to communicate effectively in the defendant’s presence.[4] The child witness in this case, who was eight years old at the time of the abuse and eleven at the pretrial hearing, testified that Thompson’s presence could trigger an anxiety attack, while also causing him to “lock up.”
The District Court, finding this testimony credible, concluded that the child would experience severe anxiety when recounting the abuse in Thompson’s presence. Therefore, the appellate court held that this procedure did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the witness testified under oath, was fully cross-examined, and could be observed by Thompson, the jury, and the court. Nor did the procedure improperly interfere with Thompson’s right to self-representation. Although Thompson watched from another room during the testimony, he could communicate with standby counsel, who conducted the cross-examination according to Thompson’s directions. The court concluded that Thompson retained control over the essential tactical decisions in his defense.
The Eleventh Circuit also rejected Thompson’s challenges to the FBI’s search warrant and his efforts to suppress any or all evidence obtained during the FBI’s search of his residence. Thompson challenged both the existence of probable cause, the manner in which the warrant was executed and requested a Franks v. Delaware hearing, arguing that the warrant affidavit contained false or misleading information.[5] The appellate court, however, concluded that probable cause did in fact exist to support the FBI’s warrant and that Thompson failed to make a substantial showing necessary to justify a full Franks hearing. The court also deferred to the district court’s credibility determination regarding whether the appropriate warrant materials and attachments had been provided during the search.
The decision in United States v. Thompson, although not directly related to the sport industry, is significant for how it approaches constitutional law within the sport context. The decision is significant for its pragmatic approach: constitutional trial rights remain robust, but they do not compel formal repetition of a valid counsel waiver, unrestricted access to contraband digital evidence, or physical face-to-face testimony where a particular child’s ability to communicate would be seriously impaired. More importantly, however, this case demonstrates how important it is for businesses, even those involved in the world of sport, to complete a through background check on potential employees. Failing to do so could possibly harm the reputation of the team and its standing within a community.
[1] United States v Samual Arthur Thompson, No. 24-11009, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, August 24, 2026.
[2] https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/jumbotron-hacker-and-prolific-child-molester-sentenced-220-years-federal-prison.
[3] Faretta v California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).
[4] Maryland v Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).
[5] Franks v Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).