William Thomas Hudson, III v. Sue DeHaan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 23-2395, 2/11/25
Hudson was tried and convicted of conspiracy to commit first degree intentional homicide and of conspiracy to commit arson. After his convictions were affirmed on his direct appeal, Hudson filed a 974.06 postconviction motion alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call his sister as a witness and not investigating her potential testimony, and that his postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these claims.
While in prison, Hudson agreed to kill another inmate’s ex-girlfriend and commit arson. The other inmate was working as an informant, however. When Hudson was released, he met with an undercover officer from whom he accepted $6000 and the targets’ addresses. At trial, Hudson’s defense was that he never intended to commit the crimes, he was instead scamming the other inmate to support himself and his sister, Dana. Hudson was the only defense witness. His trial counsel did not call Dana to testify at trial although she was present.
In his 974.06 motion, Hudson argued that his trial counsel should have undertaken a more thorough investigation of Dana’s testimony and then should have called her because she would have corroborated his testimony and served as a character witness. The circuit court held that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient, and the court of appeals affirmed.
The 7th Circuit affirms due to a lack of prejudice. Hudson contended that Dana’s testimony would have made his case stronger because it would have enhanced his credibility and supported his descriptions of the financial difficulties that motivated his actions. However, based on the postconviction record, the court concludes that Dana’s testimony could only corroborate that she had financial difficulties, but could have also supported the jury’s view that her financial difficulties motivated Hudson to commit murder and arson for money. Because Dana could not testify that Hudson merely intended to scam the other prisoner, the absence of her testimony therefore does not “undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).
