DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt ordered a prosecutor on Oct. 3 to destroy all records in relation to a murder defendant’s mental competency proceeding as mandated by law.
Stephon Shields, 29, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder while armed, first-degree burglary while armed, three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, unlawful possession of a firearm by a prior convict, and carrying a pistol without a license, for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 58-year-old James Samuels. The incident occurred on the 2900 block of Nelson Place, SE, on June 2, 2023.
To stand trial, a defendant must show enough mental competency to understand the charges he faces, as well as be able to help his attorney.
According to court documents, Shields allegedly confronted Samuels, his ex-girlfriend’s fiance, in his apartment where they got into a heated argument. The incident quickly escalated, and Shields reportedly shot Samuels 22 times, including once in his penis.
Defense attorneys Sylvia Smith and Ashley Prather withdrew their opposition to the Department of Behavioral Health’s (DBH) mental health evaluation results on Sept. 4, which determined Shields was competent to stand trial.
At the Oct. 3 hearing, Judge Brandt noted that the competency evaluations had been ongoing, so “it’s like [the case] is coming to life again.”
Smith added that, because the defense withdrew its opposition, the prosecution should have already destroyed all records in relation to competency proceedings in their possession or should have returned them to the court.
The prosecutor indicated he had yet to do either and wanted time to check the rules on the destruction of records.
“Let’s talk about it because those are very sensitive records,” Smith said and found it “troubling” the prosecution requested time to review.
Smith asked Judge Brandt to order the prosecutor to destroy all competency and DBH-related reports according to the protective order, but the prosecutor argued the defense never made a formal motion.
Judge Brandt refuted the prosecution’s point about a formal notion and told him he must abide by the protective order.
