Full Breakdown
Sgt. Quornelius Radford Convicted of Attempted Murder for Fort Stewart Shooting
6/19/2026, 4:10:51 AM
The Court-Martial Verdict
A military judge at Fort Stewart found Sgt. Quornelius Radford, 29, guilty of attempted murder after he wounded five people—four soldiers and his then-fiancé, Raekwon Smith—using a personal handgun. The judge scheduled a sentencing hearing for the following Monday; under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, attempted murder can carry a life-sentence.
Background and Context
Fort Stewart, the largest Army post east of the Mississippi River, hosts the 3rd Infantry Division and lies about 40 miles (64 km) southwest of Savannah, Georgia. Radford enlisted in 2018 and served as a supply sergeant in the division’s 2nd Armored Brigade.
Key Figures
- Sgt. Quornelius Radford – accused shooter, supply sergeant.
- Raekwon Smith – Radford’s then-fiancé, wounded in the torso.
- Lt. Col. Dylan Mack – defense attorney for Radford.
- Dr. Morgan Williamson – radiologist who examined the victims.
- Army prosecutors – presented the attempted-murder charge.
- Defense attorneys – argued suicidal intent and a desire for a police showdown.
Timeline
- 2018 – Radford enlists in the U.S. Army.
- March 2023 (or August 2023, see conflicting reports) – Radford opens fire in two offices and a conference room at Fort Stewart.
- Two-day trial – held before a military judge; testimony includes Smith’s account and medical expert analysis.
- Verdict – guilty of attempted murder; sentencing hearing set for the next Monday.
Data & Statistics
- Victims: five injured (four soldiers, one civilian).
- Injuries: facial wound, chest wound, back wound, abdominal wound; any could have been fatal.
- Potential penalty: life imprisonment under military law.
Official Statements & Responses
Army prosecutors contended that Radford’s firearms training taught him never to fire unless intending to kill. Defense counsel maintained that Radford was suicidal and sought a lethal confrontation with police. Medical testimony highlighted the severity of the wounds, underscoring the lethal potential of the attack.
Criticism & Opposition
Defense attorneys emphasized mental-health concerns, asserting that Radford’s actions were driven by personal crisis rather than malicious intent. This perspective challenges the prosecution’s focus on intent and raises questions about the Army’s handling of service-member mental health.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on the date of the incident, describing it as occurring “last August” and also as having taken place “in March.” The article does not specify the year, nor does it provide details on any prior disciplinary record or the outcome of any mental-health evaluation.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Radford only wanted one person to die that day, himself,” — Lt. Col. Dylan Mack, Army lawyer
- “Morgan Williamson said any of those wounds could have been fatal, WTOC-TV reported.” — Dr. Morgan Williamson, radiologist
- “Defense attorneys said Radford was suicidal and opened fire to provoke a showdown with police, hoping they would kill him.” — Defense attorneys
- “Prosecutors argued that Radford knew from his military firearms training never to shoot at anyone unless he meant to kill them.” — Army prosecutors
Why It Matters / Impact
The conviction underscores the Army’s enforcement of firearms policy and highlights ongoing concerns about mental-health support for service members. The case may influence future protocols for handling personal weapons on base and for assessing suicidal risk among soldiers.
What’s Next
Radford’s sentencing hearing will determine whether he receives a life-sentence or a lesser term, setting a precedent for similar offenses within the military justice system.
