Government's Response to Defendant Jon Hallford’s Sentencing Statement [#108] — No. 1:24-cr-00113 (Dkt. 109, D. Colo.)

Summary

The government's response to defendant Jon M. Hallford's sentencing statement [#108], filed June 12, 2025 as Document 109 in United States v. Hallford, Criminal Case No. 24-cr-00113-NYW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Hallford requests a 120-month sentence; the government persists in its request for 180 months. It argues that a pending state prosecution does not warrant a lighter federal sentence because the relevant conduct for the conspiracy to commit wire fraud offense includes 190 bodies at a Penrose, Colorado location, and it disputes his sentencing disparity comparisons. It states that it agrees a sentence above the guideline range is warranted and relies on its earlier Motion for Upward Departure and/or Upward Variance [#90].

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Government's Response to Defendant Jon Hallford’s Sentencing Statement [#108] — No. 1:24-cr-00113 (Dkt. 109, D. Colo.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/government-s-response-to-defendant-jon-hallford-s-sentencing-statement-abdbae0496/, SHA-256 0a63e198d499df779188fb83bc9c6756e23dcdff3b002222a6e51f6d6e757f24.

Full text

Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW Document 109 filed 06/12/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 24-cr-00113-NYW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

1. JON M. HALLFORD,

Defendant.

GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JON HALLFORD’S
SENTENCING STATEMENT [#108]

The Government respectfully responds to defendant Jon Hallford’s Sentencing

Statement, in which he requests a 120-month (10 year) imprisonment sentence. Def.’s

Sent. Statement at 1 [#108]. In response, the Government persists in its request for a

180-month (15 year) imprisonment sentence for the following reasons:

1. State Court Prosecution Does Not Warrant a Lighter Federal Sentence

The Defendant argues that because he is facing a future sentencing date on

state charges involving abuse of corpse, “this Court should focus on the federal crime at

issue here, fraud.” Def.’s Sent. Statement at 3. Put differently, the Defendant urges

the Court to leave to state authorities the responsibility of addressing the Defendant’s

conduct involving the desecration of loved ones’ remains and the emotional destruction

1
Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW Document 109 filed 06/12/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 11

it left in its wake.

The Defendant’s argument has two primary flaws:

First, the Defendant’s flagrant mistreatment of corpses is at the core of the

conduct before the Court for its consideration. Grieving family members came to the

Defendant at a moment of vulnerability and gave him their trust, and the Defendant lied

to 190 families, one after another, despite knowing about the worsening condition and

desecration of the bodies at Penrose. His willingness to propound the lies despite his

full knowledge of what was happening to the bodies after the family members entrusted

their departed loved ones to his care makes the present federal fraud offense egregious

and central to the facts the Court should consider. Even if the statutory label for the

present offense of conviction reads “conspiracy to commit wire fraud,” the undisputed

facts set forth within the PSR (and parties’ plea agreement) leave no doubt that

“relevant conduct” for the present offense includes his mistreatment, abuse, and

violation of corpses--190 bodies to be exact—after lying to the family members that he

would treat the corpses with dignity. For example, some of the details of this relevant

conduct is provided within the PSR as follows:

• The HALLFORDS attempted to conceal their fraudulent activity by
allowing the 190 bodies to remain in various states of decay and
decomposition within the Penrose location in Penrose, Colorado.
The HALLFORDS concealed the gruesome collection of bodies at
their Penrose location by preventing outsiders from entering their
building, covering the windows and doors of the building to limit
others from viewing inside, and providing false statements to others
regarding the foul odor emanating from the building and the true
nature of the activity occurring inside. PSR ¶ 23

2
Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW Document 109 filed 06/12/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 11

• There were bodies located in every room, including the bathroom,
of the 2,500 square foot single story building, except for the utility
room. Many bodies were in disposable body bags, body bags used
by local coroners, and some were wrapped in sheets with duct
tape. Some bodies were exposed with no covering at all. Some
bodies were on gurneys, and some were laying on the floor,
stacked up. There were some children recovered, and a fetus was
also enclosed in a bag with other bodies. As many of the
decomposition fluids leaked out of the bags, five-gallon buckets had
been placed in various locations to collect the leaking fluids. The
investigators experienced physical and emotional duress and had
to wear layers of protective gear as they walked through several
layers of human decomposition. PSR ¶ 48.

• Many areas of the building were initially inaccessible due to the
bodies being stacked high. None of the three refrigerators were
functioning properly with some bodies stacked in front of the ajar
door. Investigators recovered lye (which can be used to dissolve a
body), bug bombs, large baking soda containers, and Febreze
containers.… A bone grinder was located with a bag of Quikcrete
concrete mix next to it, which investigators believed to be used
along with another substance to fill urns.PSR ¶ 49

• A review of surveillance cameras that were located on the property
revealed an incident on September 9, 2023, in which JON
HALLFORD entered the building with a body on a cart. The interior
camera shows multiple deceased bodies in the room with one on a
gurney. JON HALLFORD dumped the body on the gurney to the
floor and wiped down the decomposition from the gurney onto the
other bodies in the room, as that specific gurney was needed. PSR
¶ 51

Indeed, a bedrock principle of the federal sentencing guidelines is that all

relevant conduct is to be taken into account as part of the offense conduct at

sentencing. See USSG § 1B1.3. Put simply, the Court has a responsibility to address

the Defendant’s mistreatment of corpses at sentencing and should not abdicate its duty

3
Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW Document 109 filed 06/12/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 11

under the guidelines and the federal sentencing statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because

state charges may implicate similar conduct.

Second, as a practical matter, the Defendant is requesting that the Court ignore

conduct which is properly before it and instead defer to a state judge’s judgment at a

future sentencing date. However, doing could result in a miscarriage of justice as any

number of unforeseen factors could impact the future sentencing outcome in state court.

For example, the Defendant could be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty to state

charges, thus allowing the Defendant to escape liability for his conduct; the Defendant’s

presentence report in state court may not fully address and include facts presented

within the federal PSR, thus giving the state judge an inadequate and deficient record to

consider at sentencing; the Defendant’s state sentencing could be delayed for a

protracted period of time, thus depriving the victims of a closure and timely resolution of

the case; and the state judge could evaluate the facts of the Defendant’s conduct wholly

inconsistent with federal law, federal sentencing factors and other unique facts

associated with the federal case, thus resulting in a outcome (such as a substantially

lower sentence) not anticipated by the Court.

In sum, the nature and circumstances of the Defendant’s present offense

involved the desecration of bodies. The Court should consider the Defendant’s

continuing abuse of corpses that grew worse and worse by the day and was occurring

at the same time he was continued to sign up new victims.

2. The Defendant’s Unwarranted Disparity Analysis is Flawed

4
Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW Document 109 filed 06/12/25 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 11

The Defendant argues that a sentence greater than 120 months would create an

unwarranted sentencing disparity when compared with even the most aggravated fraud

defendants. Def.’s Sent. Statement at 13. In support of her position, the Defendant

cites as examples the lengthy prison sentences imposed by courts in high-profile federal

prosecutions against Elizabeth Holmes (market and investor fraud – 135 months

prison), Robert Menendez (political corruption fraud – 132 months prison), and Jennifer

Shah (investor and tax fraud – 78 months prison).

When conducting its disparity analysis, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) instructs the Court

to concern itself with “defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of

similar conduct.” Id. Here, the Defendant citation to the above cases is inapposite as

the fact patterns from such cases do not involve “similar conduct”. While all of the

above referenced defendants committed fraud offenses which were undoubtedly

aggravated, the similarity with the present case stops there. The conduct of the

Defendant in the present case was different in numerous ways. For example, here the

Defendant: (1) operated a funeral home and preyed upon numerous grieving family

members in their time of personal sorrow; (2) abused and desecrated the remains of

190 individuals; (3) caused untold emotional damage and trauma due to extreme

cruelty, callous behavior and the ultimate abuse of trust; and (4) fraudulently obtained

close to a million dollars in Covid relief funds which were then misapplied and never

used to rectify the horrendous conditions existing at his funeral home. None of the

three defendants referenced above engaged in conduct remotely similar to the

5
Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW Document 109 filed 06/12/25 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 11

Defendant’s conduct. Therefore, considering these three cases is unhelpful when

conducting a disparity analysis in the present matter.

The Defendant cites several other cases in connection with his disparity

argument. The Defendant references United States v. Rathburn, in which the

defendant received a 108 month imprisonment sentence after he was convicted of wire

fraud and illegal transportation of hazardous material. 771 Fed. Appx. 614, 618 (6th Cir.

2019) (unpublished). Rathburn’s offense involved providing unsuspecting medical

professionals with human bodies and body parts for training purposes that tested

positive for HIV and hepatitis B. Id. at 619. Despite Rathburn’s explicit assurances to

his customers, he obtained anatomical specimens that tested positive for infectious

diseases for discounted prices and supplied them to his customers, while concealing

the positive test results. Id.

In Rathburn, the victims were third party medical professionals who unknowingly

purchased contaminated specimens in the open marketplace. Here, the Defendant’s

victims were the numerous families who had paid for a cremation or burial for a loved

one but never received such services. Compared to Rathburn, the harm to the victims

in the present case was more personal, more direct, and more traumatic as it involved

the mistreatment of a loved ones’ remains. In Rathburn, families had already

relinquished the bodies for medical purposes to various vendors and before the

defendant recklessly handled the remains when dealing with customers at a later date.

In the present case, the victims paid for a cremation or burial for a family member only

6
Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW Document 109 filed 06/12/25 USDC Colorado pg 7
of 11

to later learn in devastating fashion that their family member had been left to rot in an

undignified manner. Thus, the facts in Rathburn are distinguishable from the present

case making it of limited value when conducting a disparity analysis.

The Defendant also cites to the State of Georgia’s prosecution against Ray

Marsh in 2002, in which Marsh abandoned 334 bodies at his crematory.1 Similar to

here, Marsh provided some of the families with concrete dust instead of ashes. Marsh

was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment on state charges including theft and abuse of

corpse. Because Marsh’s case involved state offenses, it’s difficult to conduct a

meaningful disparity analysis. When sentencing Marsh, the state judge would have

applied Georgia sentencing factors, Georgia sentencing statutes, and a Georgia

sentencing rubric all of which do not correspond with the federal ones at play here. At

most, Marsh’s sentence simply highlights the fact that a state court when faced with a

similar set of facts as here, imposed a decade-plus sentence to an offender who

violated both the law and society’s sacred norms while operating a funeral home.

Finally, the Defendant attempts to distance himself from the facts in United

States v. Hess, 106 F.4th 1011 (10th Cir. 2024), where on remand, the district court once

1 The Defense provided a news article outlining the facts of the Marsh case. Def.’s
Sent. Statement, Exhibit F. The Government was unable to locate any official reported
criminal case on this matter. However, the basic facts from the news article were
confirmed by the Government based on related civil cases. See Akers v. Prime
Succession of Tennessee, 387 S.W.3d 495 (Tenn. Supreme Court 2012) and Floyd v.
Prime Succession, 2007 WL 2297810 (Tenn. Court of Appeals 2007) (unpublished).

7
Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW Document 109 filed 06/12/25 USDC Colorado pg 8
of 11

again imposed a 240 month imprisonment sentence on Hess and a 180 month

sentence on her mother for wire fraud.2 Over the course of their scheme, the

defendants falsely represented to numerous customers that they were providing a

cremation or burial for the victims’ loved ones when in fact they were often selling the

bodies and body parts to others. Among other things, the Defendant argues Hess is

different because the defendants were never charged by the state authorities with

abuse of corpse like him, and because the fraud in Hess involved several hundred more

victims and occurred over an eight-year span as opposed to four here.

Despite these differences, the similarities between the two cases remains

notable. As set forth in the Government’s Sentencing Statement, “Like in Hess, the

Defendant betrayed all trust which families placed in him to properly handle the remains

of loved ones in a dignified manner. Instead, the Defendant and his wife defiled and

disrespected the remains of loved ones, deceived the families by providing concrete mix

rather than actual cremains, and carried out their cruel conduct for a four year period.”

Id. at 14. Similar to the defendants in Hess, here the Defendant’s conduct lasted for

multiple years and was only stopped because law enforcement arrested him. Absent

law enforcement intervention, there is no indication that the Defendant was preparing to

end his scheme and cease operating his funeral home.

2 On April 21, 2025, Judge C. Arguello conducted the resentencing hearing in Hess.
See U.S. v. Megan Hess and Shirley Koch, case no. 20-cr-00098, (Dist. Colo.) [ECF #s
428 and 436].

8
Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW Document 109 filed 06/12/25 USDC Colorado pg 9
of 11

In sum, Hess provides the Court with one similar case for comparison when

conducting its disparity analysis pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Short of Hess,

however, finding comparable federal cases is difficult if not futile, which emphasizes the

egregious nature of the Defendant’s crimes.

3. Guidelines Do Not Capture the Aggravated Nature of the Underlying Crime

Finally, the Defendant argues, among other things, that “it is critical to consider

that his applicable guideline range already captures the aggravated nature of the

case…” Def.’s Sent. Statement at 13. (emphasis in original). He maintains that his

applicable offense level of 28 accounts for the harm caused to the victims and to the

community. Id. at 11-12.

However, the Defendant’s request for a 120-month sentence—a sentence 2

years above the top end of the applicable guideline range—is an acknowledgement that

this is not an ordinary case warranting a within guidelines sentence. Instead, his

offense conduct falls outside of the heartland of routine fraud cases and justifies a

substantial prison sentence beyond what is recommended by the guidelines.

Here, the Government agrees with the Defendant’s request that the facts in this

case warrant a sentence which exceeds the top end of the guideline range but simply

disagrees about the gravity and aggravated nature of his conduct.

9
Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW Document 109 filed 06/12/25 USDC Colorado pg
10 of 11

The Government continues to request a 15-year imprisonment sentence based

onthe reasons and arguments set forth in its previously filed Motion for Upward

Departure and/or Upward Variance. [#90].

Respectfully submitted this 12th day of June, 2025.

J. Bishop Grewell
Acting United States Attorney

By: s/ Tim Neff
Tim Neff
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
1801 California Street, Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 454-0100
Fax: (303) 454-0405
E-mail: Tim.Neff@usdoj.gov
Attorney for the Government

By: s/ Craig G. Fansler
Craig G. Fansler
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
1801 California Street, Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 454-0100
Fax: (303) 454-0405
E-mail: Craig.Fansler2@usdoj.gov
Attorney for the Government

10
Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW Document 109 filed 06/12/25 USDC Colorado pg
11 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 12th day of June, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing GOVERNMENT'S

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JON HALLFORD’S SENTENCING STATEMENT [#108] with the Clerk

of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record in

this case.

By: s/Maureen Carle
Legal Administrative Specialist
United States Attorney=s Office

File and source

File: 109.pdf
Size: 183,241 bytes
SHA-256: 0a63e198d499df779188fb83bc9c6756e23dcdff3b002222a6e51f6d6e757f24
Our copy: 109.pdf
Original: No public link identified.