The article states eight rounds.
Not legally (at least where I practice), but it is always a good idea. Most lawyers I know have clients sign letters of engagement that spell out things like scope of employment, fees, who the lawyer represents, etc....
Thank you, @AugustWest!
"Man up"? Not by my standards but ok.
This seems like a petty interpretation of my post. I was trying to figure out a mindset that would square with the facts that we have. It may not be my mindset or yours, but it could be MS’s. IMO.
Does not have to be by anyone’s standards, other than trying to understand the possible mindset of another- it’s a possible narrative- not a rationalization or justification of the actions- MOO
Note to self.. Stop the cameras before firing the fatal shots....
Note to self... Don't kill people! This was nothing short of an execution. It should be a death penalty case based on what we know so far.
Yes wife and daughter were behind him in court
I’ll admit, I’m slow on the uptake and ignorant -
I think the defense is gonna base his defense based on how he "felt" as opposed to "facts".
Ok thanks - that makes sense- didn’t see that at first glance
"Stamper testified Stines requested to see the judge’s phone and then attempted to call his daughter from Mullins’s phone"
Stamper is simply repeating what Stines told him. Stamper isn't verifying whether the defendant's statement is true or false. In this context, he's basically parroting police procedure (the intake interview) as opposed to analyzing truth of defendant's statements etc. They still need to analyze the phones etc. And this is a probable cause hearing, not a trial. The prosecution is only going to show the minimal amount of evidence (not show all of their cards) in order to advance the case.
Ok I guess I’m still very much not a lawyer (for lots of good reasons) but per the KY statutes- isn’t the “extreme emotional disturbance” caveat specifically about the defendant’s perspective and therefore implied how one “felt” or believed the situation to be vs objectively outside looking in? It seems to be an “inside looking out” situation- and understanding what the accused believes to be true … I could just be incredibly ignorant and obtuse on this… but it looks like to me, in my unprofessional understanding that a jury could say that if they were in similar situations there could be a reasonable explanation for the actions if they believed to be true what the accused believed to be true… if a jury of his peers believes it to be justified, it looks like the state statute allows for that to be grounds for acquittal- and would be a likely and plausible defense argument
Apparently LE knows that a call was made from Mullins phone to Stines daughter from it being recorded on the phones call log.
Seems unlikely to detail: I asked, he gave me, I called my daughters number and no commentary on when I saw...
