USA v. Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. )
) No. 3:25-CR-13-TAV-DCP
ROBERT LEE BROWN, )
)
Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned on the matter of Defendant Robert Lee Brown’s
competency. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The parties appeared for a competency hearing on November
4, 2025. Assistant United States Attorney Michael Gilmore appeared on behalf of the Government.
Assistant Federal Defender Benjamin Sharp represented Defendant Brown, who was also present.
On July 3, 2025, defense counsel moved the Court for a competency determination and evaluation
of Defendant’s sanity at the time of the offense [Doc. 16].1 On July 30, 2025, the undersigned
committed Defendant for a mental evaluation of his competency to stand trial [Doc. 20].2
Defendant arrived at the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky (“FMC Lexington”), for
his forty-five-day evaluation on August 7, 2025 [Doc. 23, SEALED].3 Defendant’s evaluation was
completed on September 19, 2025, and the Court received the forensic report on October 16, 2025
[See id.]. Defendant is now before the Court for his competency hearing.
1 Defendant filed a duplicate motion [Doc. 17], which the undersigned denied as moot [Doc.
20 p. 1 n.1].
2 The Court also ordered a sanity evaluation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4242(a) [Doc. 20 p. 3].
3 The Court was notified of Defendant’s designation to FMC Lexington on August 13, 2025
[Doc. 21] and entered a Transport Order [Doc. 22] that same day.
Case 3:25-cr-00013-TAV-DCP Document 25 Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
Counsel for both parties confirmed they received a copy of the Forensic Psychological
Report by Dr. Kristen McDaniel, forensic psychologist at FMC Lexington [Id.]. In the report, Dr.
McDaniel opines that there is no evidence to indicate Defendant currently suffers from a mental
disease or defect that would substantially impair his present ability to understand the nature and
consequences of the proceedings against him or substantially impair his ability to assist counsel
with his defense. Dr. McDaniel observed that Defendant displays a sufficient factual and rational
understanding of the legal proceedings and demonstrates sufficient present ability to consult with
his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. Considering Defendant’s
diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, Dr. McDaniel found it had no bearing on his abilities relevant
to competency and noted that although his current alcohol use is limited due to incarceration,
Defendant is at high risk for relapse without treatment.4
Counsel for both parties confirmed receipt of the Forensic Psychological Report and
stipulated to it. Neither party presented any other evidence relating to Defendant’s competency.
Based upon the Forensic Psychological Report, the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence
that Defendant Brown can understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him
and is able to assist his counsel in preparation of his defense. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).
Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant Brown is competent to proceed.
After making the competency determination, the Court addressed the trial date and
schedule in this case. The Court previously removed Defendant’s August 5, 2025 trial date from
the Court’s calendar when it ordered a competency evaluation [Doc. 20 p. 5]. At that time, the
4 As a part of his motion [Doc. 16] for a competency evaluation, Defendant Brown also gave
notice that he intends to pursue a mental defense at trial. Both he and the Government moved for
an evaluation of the Defendant’s sanity at the time of the offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4242.
Dr. McDaniel prepared a fourteen-page Sanity Report, evaluating the Defendant’s sanity at the
time of the offense. The parties have her report to use, if they so choose.
Case 3:25-cr-00013-TAV-DCP Document 25 Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
undersigned found the time during which Defendant was undergoing a competency evaluation
along with a reasonable time of up to ten days for transportation to and from the evaluation was
excludable under the Speedy Trial Act [Id.]. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A), (F). The Court also
found that to require Defendant to proceed with trial preparations while his competency is in
question would constitute a miscarriage of justice [Id.]. See 18 U.S.C. § (h)(7)(B)(i). For these
reasons, the Court found and continues to find that all the time between the filing of the motion
for a competency evaluation on July 3, 2025, see 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D), and the competency
hearing on November 4, 2025, is fully excludable under the Speedy Trial Act.
At the competency hearing, the parties were offered a new trial date of December 9, 2025.
Defendant made an oral motion to continue the trial to allow Defendant’s counsel more time to
prepare. The Government had no objection to the request for continuance. In light of the oral
motion to continue, the parties were offered another trial date of February 24, 2026. The Court
finds this additional time between the August 26, 2025 competency hearing and the new trial date
is necessary for defense counsel to confer with Defendant, who has been unavailable to counsel
while undergoing a mental evaluation, and to prepare the case for trial. The Court also finds a trial
continuance to February 24, 2026, is unopposed and that the ends of justice served by granting a
continuance outweigh the interest of the Defendant and the public in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7)(A). In this case, additional time is needed to give counsel for Defendant the reasonable
time necessary to prepare for trial, even proceeding with due diligence. 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
Accordingly, the trial of this case is reset to February 24, 2026. All time between the filing
of the motion for a competency determination on July 3, 2025, and the new trial date of February
24, 2026, is fully excludable under the Speedy Trial Act for the reasons set forth herein. See 18
U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A), (1)(F), & (7)(A)–(B). The Court also sets a new schedule in this case,
Case 3:25-cr-00013-TAV-DCP Document 25 Filed 11/06/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

4
which is stated below.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) Defendant Brown is COMPETENT to proceed to trial;
(2) The trial of this matter is reset to commence on February 24, 2026,
at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Thomas A. Varlan, United States
District Judge;
(3) All time between the July 3, 2025 motion for a mental evaluation
and the new trial date of February 24, 2026, is fully excludable time
under the Speedy Trial Act for the reasons in the undersigned’s prior
Commitment Order [Doc. 20 p. 5] and as set forth herein;
(4) The new deadline to file a plea agreement in the record and to
provide reciprocal discovery is January 26, 2026;
(5) The parties are to appear before the undersigned for a final pretrial
conference on February 10, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.;
(6) The deadline for motions in limine is extended to February 9, 2026.
Responses to motions in limine are due on or before February 17,
2026; and
(7) Requests for special jury instructions with appropriate citations to
authority pursuant to Local Rule 7.4. shall be filed on or before
February 17, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
_________________________
Debra C. Poplin
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cr-00013-TAV-DCP Document 25 Filed 11/06/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>