United States v. John Hudson
701 F. App'x 603
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- John Hudson appealed revocation of his supervised release after a Probation Department search of the house he shared with his girlfriend uncovered a gun and other contraband in the master bedroom closet.
- The district court revoked Hudson’s supervised release, finding he constructively possessed the gun and contraband.
- Hudson moved to recuse the district judge based on the judge’s conduct during tense proceedings; the motion was denied.
- Hudson argued he was denied due process and confrontation rights because the court provided only a limited portion of Probation Department chronological records and denied access to some chronologies.
- The district court sentenced Hudson to 12 months’ imprisonment, within the Sentencing Guidelines range of 8–14 months; Hudson challenged the sentence as substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Hudson’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal of judge | Judge’s conduct and tensions warranted recusal | Judge’s conduct did not meet § 455(a) recusal standard | Denied — no abuse of discretion; conduct insufficient for recusal |
| Sufficiency for constructive possession | Hudson lacked knowledge/control over gun; evidence insufficient | Hudson knew of gun and had dominion/control (constructive possession) | Upheld — evidence (closet in shared home, testimony) supports constructive possession |
| Confrontation / access to chronologies | Partial disclosure violated Fifth Amendment confrontation rights and federal rules | Government had good cause; Hudson could cross-examine witnesses; unreleased chronologies not decisive | No due process violation — balance favored government; any error harmless |
| Sentence reasonableness | Sentence was substantively unreasonable | Court considered § 3553(a) factors; within Guidelines | Affirmed — 12 months reasonable and within range |
Key Cases Cited
- Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review for recusal denial)
- United States v. Harvey, 659 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for revocation review)
- United States v. Overton, 573 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2009) (review of sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2008) (due process at revocation reviewed de novo; harmless error analysis)
- In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 583 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2009) (ex parte communications and judicial conduct guidance)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (expressions of impatience/anger usually do not require recusal)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 761 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir. 1985) (elements of constructive possession)
- United States v. Aquino, 794 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2015) (viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the government)
- United States v. Martin, 984 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1993) (balancing releasee’s confrontation rights against government’s good cause)
- United States v. Simmons, 812 F.2d 561 (9th Cir. 1987) (confrontation balancing framework)
- United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2011) (record must reflect consideration of § 3553(a) for substantive-reasonableness review)