Kentucky - Judge killed, sheriff arrested in Letcher County courthouse shooting - Sep. 19, 2024 # 2

[Knox]

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.

Stines told Stamper? I thought Stamper said he didn’t talk to Stines after he was detained/arrested? I need to go back and listen to the hearing again. Maybe I’m confusing the KSP detectives.

 

[Friday Fan]

Stines told Stamper? I thought Stamper said he didn’t talk to Stines after he was detained/arrested? I need to go back and listen to the hearing again. Maybe I’m confusing the KSP detectives.

You're probably right.

 

[Seattle1]

Stines told Stamper? I thought Stamper said he didn’t talk to Stines after he was detained/arrested? I need to go back and listen to the hearing again. Maybe I’m confusing the KSP detectives.

Stamper testified to what Stines told him when he personally encountered him at the crime scene and this was that Stines requested he treat him fair.

As for what Stines said when he was in custody, Stamper could speak only on the hearsay -- what Stamper heard from other Investigators (They're trying to kidnap my wife and kid).

This testimony is detailed in the transcript of the prelim hearing by @Allabouttrial which is posted in the MEDIA ONLY thread.

 

[Seattle1]

Does anyone know if the Killer's family has been in court to support him?

In the video frame, Stines is seated at the defense table, and behind him, right to left is his his step son in a white shirt, his wife in reddish coat, and his daughter in black mock neck sweater.

Kentucky sheriff reportedly shoots judge: A look at the timeline, investigation

 

[AugustWest]

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

I personally don’t justify his actions- and I have no clue details on circumstances or what MS felt/believed to be true- trying to understand law/context

all moo and I could be totally wrong and misreading the statutes…

Per links above (bolding mine)
Section 507.020 - Murder
1. (a)
“…except that in any prosecution a person shall not be guilty under this subsection if he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be”

@Harriett_Eva

Please don't take the way I will explain this personally; I'm only going over this slowly to be as clear as I can.

In order to be convicted of murder, one must have a specific intent; this is what attorneys call malice. Malice, for what you need to know here, is basically defined as a person's intention to do harm/injury to another party. In Kentucky, the malice requirement for murder is this: "with intent to cause the death of another person..."

The exception, "if he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance..." is a substitute for the malice I spoke of before. It means that a person did intend to cause the death of another person, but acted under what is more commonly called heat of passion. Heat of passion negates the malice spoken of before. Should you want to learn more on heat of passion, here is a link to a decent description:

heat of passion

www.law.cornell.edu

If a jury finds one did act under extreme emotional disturbance/heat of passion, then the party would not be guilty of murder. That would not mean, however, that the person would not be guilty of any crime; "extreme emotional disturbance/heat of passion simply mitigates the crime of murder to manslaughter in Kentucky. It is not an absolute defense to murder, but only mitigates the crime (an absolute defense would be, for instance, self-defense). This is recognized in the language of the Kentucky manslaughter statute:

(1) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when: ...(b) With intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes the death of such person or of a third person under circumstances which do not constitute murder because he or she acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, as defined in subsection (1)(a) of KRS 507.020 (the murder statute of Kentucky)

This absolutely is what the defense is angling for. Not guilty of murder, but he would be guilty of manslaughter. The only question the jury would be concerned with would be the malice requirement for the crime. No other questions would be needed. The only question that would need to be answered at trial would be "would a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances feel extreme emotional disturbance to the level excusing a person from the murder."

 

[Friday Fan]

View attachment 535474

In the video frame, Stines is seated at the defense table, and behind him, right to left is his his step son in a white shirt, his wife in reddish coat, and his daughter in black mock neck sweater.

Kentucky sheriff reportedly shoots judge: A look at the timeline, investigation

MOO: But based on his appearance, I swear that kid in the white shirt has gotta be his real son. He's a splitting image of him!
(Maybe from a previous marriage/relationship?) MOO MOO

 

[LadyL]

the obit comments are interesting

 

[sunspun]

This is from the transcript provided by @Allabouttrial, which has been added to the Media Thread for this case. And it's one part of the hearing that I find very confusing. If Detective Stamper's words here can be taken literally (and they should be, since it's sworn testimony), then we have to believe that after Sheriff Stines shot the judge, he surrendered and was taken into custody, booked into jail, and locked up, and that since all that happened, not one officer or detective or anybody in LE sat down with him and questioned him or took a statement or affidavit from him or held an interview with him or brought him in to the interrogation room or anything!

The defense attorney sounded like he found this perplexing as well. He clarified that this is what Stamper was saying, and also made sure to note that the reason he was not questioned was NOT because he had requested an attorney or asserted his right to keep silent and not answer questions without an attorney present. But for some reason, no one ever went back to wherever they put him and asked him anything or for a written statement or anything else! Isn't that unusual? I thought it was S O P to always question a suspect in custody, but maybe not. Here's the relevant part of the transcript:

DEFENSE - Did you attempt to speak to Sheriff Stines at the Leslie County jail after the incident?

DETECTIVE - No.

DEFENSE - Did anyone from your agency attempt to interview him?

DETECTIVE - Not to my knowledge, no.

DEFENSE - At and that point, have you asserted his right to an attorney or anything?

DETECTIVE - No.

DEFENSE - Nobody went back and tried to talk to him or do an interview?

DETECTIVE - No.

(and then he moves on to a new topic)

 

[Luna20]

the obit comments are interesting

Where are they?

 

[Seattle1]

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

I personally don’t justify his actions- and I have no clue details on circumstances or what MS felt/believed to be true- trying to understand law/context

all moo and I could be totally wrong and misreading the statutes…

Per links above (bolding mine)
Section 507.020 - Murder
1. (a)
“…except that in any prosecution a person shall not be guilty under this subsection if he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be”

While I agree that the KY Murder Statute is favorable for the defendant in terms of the exception to first degree murder if extreme emotional disturbance, I disagree that there would be grounds for acquittal, but rather a conviction on manslaughter.

There is no question that Stines was present in the Chambers and fired a weapon several times that wounded Mullins, causing his death. No acquittal here on causing Mullins death. MOO

 

[AugustWest]

While I agree that the KY Murder Statute is favorable for the defendant in terms of the exception to first degree murder if extreme emotional disturbance, I disagree that there would be grounds for acquittal, but rather a conviction on manslaughter.

There is no question that Stines was present in the Chambers and fired a weapon several times that wounded Mullins, causing his death. No acquittal here on causing Mullins death. MOO

This is correct. All elements of murder met, but malice mitigated due to extreme emotional disturbance. Not acquittal. Not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter.

Jury wouldn't even be given the choice of letting him walk free.

 

[Harriett_Eva]

Please don't take the way I will explain this personally; I'm only going over this slowly to be as clear as I can.

Thank you @AugustWest, for your helpful reply- while I excel at many things, the finer points of law (and accounting) are not amongst them!

Legal and accounting nuances very often need to be explained at an elementary level- thank you for your accessible and kind explanation -

 

[Harriett_Eva]

Jury wouldn't even be given the choice of letting him walk free.

Is jury nullification an option in KY felony murder cases?

 

[Tricia]

I’ll admit, I’m slow on the uptake and ignorant -

I don’t see the difference or distinction that is being made- if my family was at imminent risk of being kidnapped, I would label that as being in danger… can you clarify?

If someone shoots a judge and says "They are trying to kidnap my wife and kid" that sounds almost paranoid to me. Why would a judge be kidnapping his wife and kid? It sounds exaggerated. But if someone says, " My wife and child were in danger" that would make me think something else was going on. Something more understandable. It is an easier statement to hear. All my opinion of course.

 

[Friday Fan]

While I agree that the KY Murder Statute is favorable for the defendant in terms of the exception to first degree murder if extreme emotional disturbance, I disagree that there would be grounds for acquittal, but rather a conviction on manslaughter.

There is no question that Stines was present in the Chambers and fired a weapon several times that wounded Mullins, causing his death. No acquittal here on causing Mullins death. MOO

It just seems weird.

"So and so gave me a dirty look and it caused me to feel threatened". (A woman could say that about many men)
And many people who commit murder do have some emotional issues.
I would think that this is extremely subjective.

You could plan murder until the cows come home and then stage a fake emotional attack and it becomes manslaughter. Many times people kill people that they are not having good relations with.

______________

MOO: I wonder if there are people out there already trying to taint a future jury pool?

 

[Allabouttrial]

This is from the transcript provided by @Allabouttrial, which has been added to the Media Thread for this case. And it's one part of the hearing that I find very confusing. If Detective Stamper's words here can be taken literally (and they should be, since it's sworn testimony), then we have to believe that after Sheriff Stines shot the judge, he surrendered and was taken into custody, booked into jail, and locked up, and that since all that happened, not one officer or detective or anybody in LE sat down with him and questioned him or took a statement or affidavit from him or held an interview with him or brought him in to the interrogation room or anything!

The defense attorney sounded like he found this perplexing as well. He clarified that this is what Stamper was saying, and also made sure to note that the reason he was not questioned was NOT because he had requested an attorney or asserted his right to keep silent and not answer questions without an attorney present. But for some reason, no one ever went back to wherever they put him and asked him anything or for a written statement or anything else! Isn't that unusual? I thought it was S O P to always question a suspect in custody, but maybe not. Here's the relevant part of the transcript:

DEFENSE - Did you attempt to speak to Sheriff Stines at the Leslie County jail after the incident?

DETECTIVE - No.

DEFENSE - Did anyone from your agency attempt to interview him?

DETECTIVE - Not to my knowledge, no.

DEFENSE - At and that point, have you asserted his right to an attorney or anything?

DETECTIVE - No.

DEFENSE - Nobody went back and tried to talk to him or do an interview?

DETECTIVE - No.

(and then he moves on to a new topic)

I wonder if they were waiting on the DA to instruct them as to who should conduct the interview due to a conflict of interest. I'm guessing they were talking about the immediate aftermath of his arrest as I'm sure he was interviewed at some point.

 

[MollyDDD]

@Harriett_Eva

Please don't take the way I will explain this personally; I'm only going over this slowly to be as clear as I can.

In order to be convicted of murder, one must have a specific intent; this is what attorneys call malice. Malice, for what you need to know here, is basically defined as a person's intention to do harm/injury to another party. In Kentucky, the malice requirement for murder is this: "with intent to cause the death of another person..."

The exception, "if he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance..." is a substitute for the malice I spoke of before. It means that a person did intend to cause the death of another person, but acted under what is more commonly called heat of passion. Heat of passion negates the malice spoken of before. Should you want to learn more on heat of passion, here is a link to a decent description:

heat of passion

www.law.cornell.edu

If a jury finds one did act under extreme emotional disturbance/heat of passion, then the party would not be guilty of murder. That would not mean, however, that the person would not be guilty of any crime; "extreme emotional disturbance/heat of passion simply mitigates the crime of murder to manslaughter in Kentucky. It is not an absolute defense to murder, but only mitigates the crime (an absolute defense would be, for instance, self-defense). This is recognized in the language of the Kentucky manslaughter statute:

This absolutely is what the defense is angling for. Not guilty of murder, but he would be guilty of manslaughter. The only question the jury would be concerned with would be the malice requirement for the crime. No other questions would be needed. The only question that would need to be answered at trial would be "would a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances feel extreme emotional disturbance to the level excusing a person from the murder."

I’ve only just started following this story, so please excuse my ignorance.
Is there any chance that Judge Mullins had a sexual encounter with Stine’s daughter or acted inappropriately with her? I’m just trying to think of what could drive someone to the point of murdering a friend in cold blood so unexpectedly. JMO

 

[AugustWest]

Is jury nullification an option in KY felony murder cases?

A judge won't give an instruction that it is an option, and would remove any juror who hinted at such.

 

[AugustWest]

I’ve only just started following this story, so please excuse my ignorance.
Is there any chance that Judge Mullins had a sexual encounter with Stine’s daughter or acted inappropriately with her? I’m just trying to think of what could drive someone to the point of murdering a friend in cold blood so unexpectedly. JMO

Don't know and won't go there. I have no inside knowledge of such.

ETA: the defense of "extreme emotional disturbance" would be consistent with that hypothetical fact pattern though.

 

[Harriett_Eva]

If someone shoots a judge and says "They are trying to kidnap my wife and kid" that sounds almost paranoid to me. Why would a judge be kidnapping his wife and kid? It sounds exaggerated. But if someone says, " My wife and child were in danger" that would make me think something else was going on. Something more understandable. It is an easier statement to hear. All my opinion of course.

I guess it’s a double edged sword- the second statement includes the first but not vice versa, my family is in danger is palatable, and could/would include the possibility of being kidnapped- a general statement, containing a specific statement…

If one starts with the specific statement, and then backs up to the general statement, it might have the appearance of backpedaling or that the first statement was an exaggerated overstatement- they are going to be kidnapped (very specific, unusual and extreme) vs they are in danger (more general, typical and relatable)

I suppose it depends on what’s true to begin with- and what can be subsequently verified -

MOO