USA v. Lee, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 3:25-CR-18-KAC-JEM
)
KRISTOPHER JONES, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), for disposition or
recommendation as appropriate, and Order of Referral on the matter of Defendant Kristopher
Jones’s competency [Doc. 169, SEALED]. On February 6, 2026, defense counsel moved the Court
for psychiatric or psychological examination to determine his mental competency to proceed with
sentencing [Doc. 168, SEALED]. Following a hearing on April 20, 2026, the undersigned
committed Defendant for a mental evaluation of his competency to proceed with sentencing
[Doc. 177].1 Defendant arrived at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina
(FCI Butner) on May 6, 2026, for his thirty-day evaluation [Doc. 180]. Defendant’s evaluation
was completed on June 4, 2026, and the Court received the forensic report on June 30, 2026
[See Doc. 195, SEALED]. The parties appeared for a competency hearing on July 8, 2026.
Assistant United States Attorney Kevin Quencer appeared on behalf of the Government. Attorney
Rachel Wolf represented Defendant Jones, who was also present.
Counsel for both parties confirmed they received a copy of the Forensic Evaluation by
Dr. Heather Ross, forensic psychologist at FCI Butner [Doc. 195, SEALED]. In the report,
1 	The Court continued sentencing to September 4, 2026, at 1:45 p.m. [Doc. 179].
Case 3:25-cr-00018-KAC-JEM Document 198 Filed 07/09/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
Dr. Ross opines that although Defendant Jones suffers from a mental disease, it does not render
him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences
of the proceedings or assist in his defense [Id. at 9]. Both parties stipulated to the report’s findings
[see Doc. 196], and neither party presented other evidence relating to Defendant’s competency.
“The test for a defendant’s competency to stand trial is ‘whether he has sufficient present
ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding–and whether
he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.’” Mallet v. United
States, 334 F.3d 491, 494–95 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402
(1960)). “In making this determination, a court should consider evidence including that of
‘irrational behavior, the defendant’s demeanor [in court] and any prior medical opinion concerning
competence to stand trial.’” United States v. Taylor, No. 23-5470, 2024 WL 966570, at *3
(6th Cir. Mar. 6, 2024) (quoting United States v. Prigmore, 15 F.4th 768, 776 (6th Cir. 2021)).
Based upon the Forensic Evaluation, the parties’ stipulation, and the record as a whole, the
undersigned finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Jones can understand the
nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and is capable of assisting properly in his
defense. 	See 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	4241. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	finds 	that 	Defendant 	Jones 	is
COMPETENT to participate in further proceedings in this case. At the hearing, the parties
acknowledged and affirmed that this case will proceed to sentencing, which is currently scheduled
for September 4, 2026.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
________ _______________________
Jill E. McCook
United States Magistrate Judge
2 	Ms. Wolf represented that she may file a motion to continue the sentencing proceeding.
Case 3:25-cr-00018-KAC-JEM Document 198 Filed 07/09/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID
#: <pageID>