Former judge’s attorney now claims Drummond violated second verbal agreement by speaking to News 4
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) — The attorney representing a former Oklahoma judge accused in a drive-by shooting now claims Oklahoma’s Attorney General violated a verbal agreement by speaking to News 4 about an ongoing dispute with the case. The attorney claims to have proof that the two had an agreement, but says he doesn’t want to share it right now.
As News 4 reported Friday, Stephen Jones—an attorney representing former Garfield County District Court Judge Brian Lovell—claimed in a June 30 court filing that he and Attorney General Gentner Drummond struck a deferred prosecution agreement during several private phone calls.
However, Drummond told News 4 no agreement existed, because his office is still waiting on medical records before deciding whether Lovell is mentally competent to face trial.
Now, Jones says the mere fact that Drummond commented publicly on the issue raised even more red flags—accusing Drummond of going back on yet another verbal agreement not to talk publicly about the case.
Jones claims to have transcripts of his phone calls with Drummond, but says he is not going to release them as of right now.
A multi-county grand jury indicted Lovell in May 2024, accusing him of shooting at his brother-in-law’s house in the town of Bison, Okla., during an apparent drive-by in 2023.
Lovell is also accused of a separate drive-by shooting in Austin, Texas.
News 4 also reported that Lovell’s former courtroom bailiff claimed to have had an affair with Lovell, and the two had sex together inside the Garfield County Courthouse.
He resigned from the bench last fall, citing thyroid cancer and dementia.
Jones, who is representing Lovell in the Oklahoma drive-by shooting case, says the state’s chief medical officer diagnosed Lovell with a form of dementia.
He argues that the diagnosis proves Lovell wasn’t of sound mind when the shooting happened and doesn’t deserve to stand trial.
“Mr. Lovell has been diagnosed by the preeminent psychiatrist in this state as having found a temporal dementia,” Jones told News 4 Monday. “He fits all of the symptoms. His conduct is consistent with that disease.”
Jones says when he brought that up in court, prosecutors with Drummond’s office asked to bring in another doctor for a second opinion.
In April, Jones claims Drummond called him and offered to resolve the case with a deferred prosecution agreement, which would allow Lovell to avoid going to trial.
“He brought up the deferred prosecution agreement and asked whether I would accept that and whether my client would accept it,” Jones said. “And I told him that my client would accept it and that I accepted it.”
Jones says they finalized the specifics of the deal during a second call in June, when he claims Drummond promised to send over the formal, written agreement.
Jones claims Drummond also said his office would no longer seek a second medical evaluation.
However, Jones says Drummond’s office never sent him a copy of the agreement.
When News 4 asked Drummond about the case on July 9, he said the delay was because his office was still waiting for a second medical opinion to help determine whether Lovell should face trial.
“The status of the case right now is he’s providing my office with the neurological and psychological reports of the attending physicians that will either bring light to the fact that the judge has a mental disability or not,” Drummond said.
Jones insists Drummond promised in June that he would no longer seek a second opinion.
He says Drummond called him again on July 2, and explained he reversed on that promise because he needed a second opinion to serve as cover to avoid political fallout from allowing someone of Lovell’s status to avoid trial.
“He needed a peg,” Jones said. “In other words, something to hang your hat on. He didn’t say his hat, but he said he needed a peg… I understand the politics of that.”
Jones says he supports Drummond’s political ambitions, so he agreed to get Lovell a second evaluation to help Drummond politically.
He claims the two agreed not to talk about the issue publicly for 30 days during their July 2 phone call.
Jones says he was surprised to learn Drummond spoke on camera with News 4 just seven days later.
“I took the attorney general at his word,” Jones said. “That got me to thinking, well, perhaps I’ve misjudged the attorney general. I hope I haven’t.”
In a press release Monday, Jones accused Drummond of orchestrating the interview to limit political fallout, writing in part:
“On Friday… Drummond arranged for an interview with a single reporter from a single television station… which he knew from experience would appear on the air at 6:00 p.m. on a Friday evening in the middle of the summer when attention to television news is at the lowest level of the year…”
However, Drummond did not request the interview.
News 4 asked Drummond about the case while interviewing him on an unrelated topic for an unrelated story on July 9.
Drummond voluntarily answered the questions.
News 4 had been attempting to speak to Jones since earlier than July 9, but did not hear back from Jones until Friday, when he declined to comment to News 4.
The story aired during the 10 p.m. newscast Friday—not at 6 p.m. as Jones’ press release claimed.
Despite telling News 4 he had “no comment” on Friday, Jones reached out to us on Saturday seeking an interview to respond to Drummond’s claims News 4 aired on Friday.
During the interview with him on Monday, Jones claimed he has transcripts of his phone calls with Drummond, but doesn’t want to release them unless he “has to.”
“I am relying on the [Attorney General] to honor his word,” Jones said. “I am still his supporter, and I’m still his friend, and I’m still his ally. I make a difference between politics and law, and I expect him to honor his agreement.”
On Monday, News 4 asked Drummond’s office if he had any response to Jones’ claims.
A spokesperson said he does not.
Jones says he filed a motion asking a judge to decide once and for all whether a formal agreement exists.