USA v. Williams

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 24-00031-01-CR-W-BP
)
MICHAEL K. WILLIAMS, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On September 27, 2024, Defendant was ordered to undergo a competency evaluation.
(Doc. 28) 	Defendant was examined by Haley Wentowski, Psy.D., who prepared a report dated
November 19, 2024, in which she opined Defendant was not competent to stand trial. 	(Doc. 29)
The Court found Defendant incompetent and ordered that he be committed to the custody of the
Attorney General for competency restoration pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). 	(Doc. 35)
The Court and parties have now received a report prepared by Katlyn Hanson, Psy.D.,
dated March 5, 2026, in which Dr. Hanson opined that Defendant was unlikely to be restored to
competency within the foreseeable future. 	(Doc. 42) 	A competency hearing was held on March
26, 2026. 	The government was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Heather Siegele.
Upon defense counsel’s request and without objection by the Government, Defendant appeared
virtually from the Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri. 	Defendant’s appointed attorney,
Travis Poindexter, appeared in person. 	The parties stipulated that if Dr. Hanson were called, she
would testify consistently with the report. 	No additional evidence was presented. 	Accordingly,
and consistent with such evidence, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record, and
Case 4:24-cr-00031-BP Document 50 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 2

2
applicable law, enter an order finding that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241, Defendant remains
incompetent to proceed and that he is unlikely to be restored to competency within the foreseeable
future.
Counsel are advised that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each has fourteen days from
the date of this Report and Recommendation to file and serve specific objections to the same,
unless an extension of time for good cause is obtained. Failure to file and serve timely specific
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal factual findings made in the report and
recommendation which are accepted or adopted by the district judge except upon the ground of
plain error or manifest injustice.
/s/ Jill A. Morris
JILL A. MORRIS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:24-cr-00031-BP Document 50 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 2