Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Hudson

United States District Court, Tenth Circuit

August 9, 2013

JOHN D. HUDSON, Defendant.


Kathryn H. Vratil United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the government’s Motion To Review Release Order (Doc. #16) filed June 7, 2013. On June 12 and 13 and July 30, 2013, the Court held a hearing on the motion. Based on the below analysis, the Court finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure defendant’s appearance as required and the safety of any other person and the community. Defendant will therefore be detained pending trial.

Factual Background

The Court takes judicial notice of the Pretrial Services Report prepared May 24, 2013, and the proffers and evidence presented at the detention hearing on May 29 and June 7, 2013 and at the review hearing on June 12 and 13 and July 30, 2013. Based on the record evidence, the Court finds the following facts.

A female Confidential Informant (“CI”) provided certain information about defendant to agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”). In 2007, when the CI met defendant, he was a detective for the Police Department in Kansas City, Kansas (“KCKPD”). The CI and defendant had periodic contact and in December of 2010, they began a romantic relationship. In January of 2011, an FBI investigation led to the arrest of several officers in KCKPD’s Selective, Crime, Occurrence, Reduction Enforcement (“SCORE”) Unit. Three SCORE officers pled guilty to federal civil rights violations. The SCORE takedown did not involve defendant, but he had close friends who were arrested and convicted as part of the federal investigation. The CI stated that after the SCORE takedown, defendant became very paranoid and angry toward the judicial system.

On November 20, 2011, at the rehearsal dinner for his sister’s wedding, defendant was drinking alcohol and became extremely aggressive and disruptive. During the dinner, defendant asked the maid of honor if she could get him oxycontin. Defendant’s sister, who had seen defendant abuse alcohol on prior occasions, had defendant removed from the dinner. Defendant’s sister testified that after the incident, she was fearful of defendant and would be afraid of him if he is released.

In December of 2011, defendant told the CI that he had resigned from the police department because of an internal affairs investigation related to his personal use of a KCKPD vehicle outside of Kansas City, Kansas and his attempt to mask the signal on the GPS unit of the vehicle. Defendant began to tell the CI that “they’ll get their’s” and that he will “have his revenge, ” referring to the individuals responsible for the arrest of the SCORE officers and the internal affairs investigation involving defendant.[1]

At a retirement party at a local restaurant on December 9, 2011, defendant approached KCKPD Detective Steve Owen. Defendant knew that Detective Owen was a good friend of Detective Herron. Defendant told Detective Owen that Detective Herron better not cross paths with him. Defendant told Detective Owen that Detective Herron better “watch himself” and that Detective Owen “hasn’t seen the last of John Hudson.”

In February of 2012, defendant got a Grim Reaper tattoo on his left arm. The tattoo had six skulls around the Grim Reaper and a phrase which is Latin for “Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and you’re next.” Defendant told the CI that the six skulls represent the six “black rats.”[2] He told the CI that he was going to get a crucifix with six rats around the tattoo when the six “black rats” had been eliminated. Defendant talked to the CI about the individuals involved in the two investigations “getting their due, ” and that he himself would get what was owed him.

In May or June of 2012, defendant borrowed money from his mother and as collateral, he left an unloaded AR-15 assault-style rifle in a case with a 30-round clip at her house. Defendant’s mother did not ask for or want the gun.

In July of 2012, defendant told the CI that he had demons, that he was in a “dark place” and that he had a plan involving Major Cosgrove that needed to take place. Defendant told the CI that his plan would be to “take him out” and that he would make it seem random. Defendant talked to the CI about his shooting abilities and told the CI that he wanted Major Cosgrove to know that it was him. Defendant told the CI that before he would start his plan, he wanted to take care of a few things such as getting his medical disability, disappearing by getting rid of his phones and anything traceable and filing for 50 per cent custody of his children.

In September or October 2012, at Johnnie’s Tavern, defendant hit another patron in the throat and knocked him out. Defendant argues that he did not hit the individual, but instead put him in a “sleeper hold.” The distinction is immaterial because in either event, defendant’s aggressive behavior caused the victim to briefly pass out.

Near the end of November of 2012, the CI noticed that defendant had an extreme change in behavior. During this period, he had a falling out with his mother as well as the CI’s mother. Defendant began making comments about how he thought he would get shot in the back, and he refused to keep the blinds open where he resided.

In December of 2012, defendant told the CI that he is a trained killer, that he is able to be lethal with just his body, and that he knows enough about crime scenes that he can get away with homicide. Defendant also spoke about his tattoo and went off his medication because he felt “numb.”

The CI reported that as of March of 2013, defendant still had a KCKPD badge that he had used in traffic stops and to get into county buildings after hours. Defendant does not have a license to carry and conceal a firearm, and is not licensed to carry a firearm as a retired officer. The CI reported that defendant was always armed. He kept a handgun in his pocket or on his back waistline. The CI stated that in defendant’s residence, he kept a shotgun by the front door, a shotgun in the laundry room, an assault rifle in the bedroom and a handgun in the kitchen.

In March of 2013, defendant told the CI that he would “start taking them out, one by one.” He described how prior to enacting this plan, he would talk with his 12-year-old son and explain how he had to stand on his principles, how he knew he was going to go to prison for what he was going to do and how he knew that he would probably get lethal injection. As recently as March 31, 2013, defendant stated that he wants ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.