What Justice Should Look Like — and What Went Wrong in Grant County

This isn’t about emotion. It’s about law, procedure, and accountability — the safeguards that protect every defendant, every victim, and every citizen who walks into a courtroom in Arkansas.

This post isn't a rumor or opinion. It’s built entirely from court transcripts, official filings, and Arkansas law.

The 2023 “Fitness to Proceed” Evaluation: Dr. Wright’s Report Raises Red Flags

August 30, 2023 — Four years after the first evaluation — while Philip L. Reynolds was still committed to the Arkansas State Hospital, Dr. Melissa Wright, Psy.D., conducted a new fitness-to-proceed evaluation through the hospital’s forensic service. That report was later filed and relied on in court. Her official report listed numerous materials provided directly by both sides, including a “Memo of Mr. Reynolds’ Fitness Concerns” emailed by defense counsel. Then, at the January 29, 2024, hearing, Dr. Wright testified under oath that Reynolds’s attorney, Scott Brizendine, had been present inside the evaluation room — a clear departure from standard forensic procedure. Under Arkansas Code § 5-2-305, evaluations meant for court must remain neutral and independent; attorneys are not supposed to participate or influence the process.

“h. Memo of Mr. Reynolds’ Fitness Concerns, provided by Scott Brizendine via email on 9/1/23.”— Dr. Melissa Wright, Fitness to Proceed Report (2023), p. 2

That single line shows that materials were emailed directly by the defense attorney to the examiner — outside the court’s supervision and without any filed order authorizing the transmittal. Nothing in the docket indicates that Judge Circuit Stephen Shirron reviewed or approved what was sent. Arkansas Code § 5-2-305 makes the court—not the attorneys—responsible for deciding and transmitting all information relevant to a forensic examination. That safeguard exists to preserve neutrality and transparency, ensuring the examiner reviews a single, court-controlled record rather than materials hand-selected by one party.

This failure of oversight meant Dr. Wright’s opinion was built on information supplied directly by the very attorney whose client’s competency was under review.

How Mental Evaluations Are Supposed to Work

When a defendant’s mental state is in question, Arkansas law says the judge must control the process.

“Upon ordering the examination, the court shall transmit to the examiner the information and documents relevant to the examination.”— Ark. Code § 5-2-305(b)(2)

That means:

• The court decides what’s relevant.

• The clerk sends the materials.

• The examiner reviews them and files a public report.

That’s how neutrality and transparency are protected.

Even the American Psychological Association warns that evaluators must never rely on materials provided directly by one party. Doing so destroys the appearance — and the reality — of fairness.

The Hodges Case: When the Law Was Followed

In State v. Ryan Hodges (27CR-23-94), the process worked.

The Arkansas State Hospital received:

• The court’s evaluation orders,

• The affidavit of arrest, and

• Medical records from the Veterans Healthcare System.

That’s it — no defense memos, no witness statements, no emails. Dr. Lacey Willet interviewed the defendant alone, issued her findings, and the report was filed publicly, as the law requires.

That’s what § 5-2-305 looks like when it’s followed and Circuit Judge Stephen Shirron heard this case, too.

The Reynolds Case: When the Law Broke Down

In State v. Philip Reynolds (27CR-19-42-2), every safeguard failed.

Dr. Wright’s report lists “police reports, audio recordings, voluntary statements, emails, case law, attorney notes, and correspondence” — none of which came through the court. Her own testimony confirmed that the defense attorney was present inside the evaluation:

“His attorney sits in on the evaluations.”— Dr. Wright, Jan 29 2024 Transcript, p. 10

She also described how Reynolds had “learned what he’s supposed to say” from working with that same attorney (pp. 22–23). And even though she acknowledged that Reynolds was only “stable while on Seroquel” (p. 27), Circuit Judge Stephen Shirron declared him fit to proceed within the hour. No written order listed what materials were transmitted. No record shows court oversight. And the report wasn’t viewable to the public until later — until a Freedom of Information Act request brought it to light.

Why the Prosecutor Stayed Silent

One of the most troubling parts of the January 29,2024 hearing is what didn’t happen: no one from the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office objected when the defense attorney’s presence inside the evaluation was disclosed.

Under Arkansas Code § 5-2-305, the court—not the prosecutor—controls the evaluation process, so the State may have viewed it as “the judge’s call.” But silence from the State’s side doesn’t make the conduct proper; it only shows how routine these departures from the law have become in Grant County.

In a small circuit, lawyers and judges often work together every week, and informal habits can replace written procedure. That culture of going along allowed an evaluation that violated neutrality and transparency to proceed without challenge. The result wasn’t just one lawyer’s mistake — it was a system failure in which everyone stopped enforcing the safeguards Arkansas law requires.

What Circuit Judge Stephen Shirron Should Have Done

Under Arkansas law, Judge Shirron had three duties:

1. Control the materials. Decide, on the record, what information was relevant and have the clerk — not the lawyers — transmit it.

2. Keep the exam independent. Once Dr. Wright admitted a defense attorney sat in, he should have struck the report and ordered a new, neutral evaluation.

3. Protect the record. § 5-2-327(d)(1) requires that all forensic reports be filed publicly with the clerk. That didn’t happen until citizens demanded it.

Instead of acting as referee, the court let both sides make up their own rules. That’s not discretion — that’s neglect.

Predetermining the Next Doctor

During the same January 29, 2024, hearing, Judge Stephen Shirron asked Dr. Wright whether she expected to conduct the next evaluation. She said yes. He agreed and scheduled follow-up dates.

But § 5-2-305(b)(2) says evaluators must be designated by the Division Director of the Arkansas State Hospital — not chosen by a judge and not requested by counsel. That rule exists to prevent judges from hand-picking doctors who have already taken a position in the same case.

By naming Dr. Wright in advance, the court ensured that the same person who found Reynolds “fit if medicated” would later judge whether he was criminally responsible — a built-in conflict of interest.

The Motion That Chose Its Own Doctor

A week later, on February 5, 2024, the defense filed a motion formally requesting that Dr. Wright herself perform the next evaluation:

“Comes now the Defendant... and moves this Court to order that a criminal-responsibility evaluation be conducted by Dr. Melissa Wright, who previously evaluated the Defendant for fitness to proceed.”— Defense Motion, Feb 5, 2024.

Judge Stephen Shirron granted it. That decision violated the same statute — § 5-2-305(b)(2) — and gave one side the power to pick its own examiner. So far, no other Arkansas case shows that happening.

Why This Matters

This isn’t about liking or disliking a judge. It’s about whether the law applies equally to everyone — even inside the courtroom.

When the rules say the court must control the process and the court doesn’t, that’s not “just a procedural issue.” It’s the difference between a system of justice and a system of favors.

Grant County deserves judges who follow the law — not rewrite it as they go.

Transparency Is Not Optional

I’ve spent years collecting these records so the public can see what really happened — not because I’m “unhappy,” but because justice demands sunlight.

The documents, transcripts, and statutes speak for themselves. If we ignore how the law was bent in this case, we tell every future defendant and every future victim that fairness is optional.

It isn’t.

Because accountability shouldn’t depend on who’s sitting on the bench.