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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
acehard said:
I was going to mention this. On the day it happened, this statement was already leaked on social media and I saw the word 'take'. I don't know what was actually said and obviously it makes a big difference. IMO
Click to expand...
Yes.
Speculation: When I heard Stamper make the statement in court, it sounded to me like he was paraphrasing with some not very well hidden contempt.
 
Florida_marlin said:
Jury nullification is always an option in the United States, any state, anytime. It’s rare, but it does happen. Once a jury is seated, they can vote to acquit over and above any instruction given by the judge. Juries have the ultimate power to judge the law and the facts. Judges and prosecutors will tell and instruct juries otherwise. In fact, most clearly state that the jury is only allowed to judge the facts. But that’s not true. Once seated and decision made, it’s done. It’s very rare due to the fact it’s improbable to get 12 at one time on a jury of the same mind to nullify.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Can OP cite a case in the last 10-20 years where this happened? Thanks.
 
Auntie Cipation said:
I think we need to find out with certainty whether that's exactly what Stines said or whether Stamper was paraphrasing -- IIRC there was some discussion upthread about whether Stines had actually said something like "they're trying to *TAKE* my wife and kid -- which is a word with much broader meaning than *kidnap* -- it could even refer to the wife/kid being persuaded to do something "merely" against Stines' wishes, rather than a literal physical kidnapping.
Click to expand...

acehard said:
I was going to mention this. On the day it happened, this statement was already leaked on social media and I saw the word 'take'. I don't know what was actually said and obviously it makes a big difference. IMO
Click to expand...

For discussion purposes, we have a 24 year veteran of the KSP (Clayton Stamper) who testified under oath at that preliminary hearing that when he arrived at the Courthouse (crime scene), he personally talked to Stines, and the only thing the accused said to him was the 'treat him fair.'

When questioned by the defense if Stines made any statements about his family, Stamper offered (as hearsay evidence) that he heard from other Investigators who arrived before him that when Stines was taken into custody, he made the comment, "they're trying to kidnap my wife and kid."

Again, this was only Stamper's recollection of what he was told.

Given Stamper was one of the most evasive LE witnesses I've watched in a long time, could he have gotten the alleged statement by Stines wrong? Possibly. Then again, "kidnap" isn't exactly a word one generally substitutes in conversation.

One thing is for certain: during trial, it won't be Stamper who tells us what Stines said here but the Investigator who actually heard the statement (i.e., hearsay evidence not allowed at trail).

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with how long evidence is sealed when a grand jury is used but I imagine the KSP personnel who had contact with Stines will testify before the GJ, and the transcript eventually made available to the defense but when it's discovered-- I don't know.

And this ^^ is why I very much prefer charges by Information and Complaint! MOO

For reference, please see the preliminary hearing transcript by @Allabouttrial linked in the MEDIA thread.
 
Seattle1 said:
When questioned by the defense if Stines made any statements about his family, Stamper offered (as hearsay evidence) that he heard from other Investigators who arrived before him that when Stines was taken into custody, he made the comment, "they're trying to kidnap my wife and kid."

Again, this was only Stamper's recollection of what he was told.

Given Stamper was one of the most evasive LE witnesses I've watched in a long time, could he have gotten the alleged statement by Stines wrong? Possibly. Then again, "kidnap" isn't exactly a word one generally substitutes in conversation.
Click to expand...

Sitting here, I just had a thought...

I wonder if Stines said "they are trying to steal my family"--which could fit into the idea that Stines' daughter and/or wife were in communication with the judge and/or others in order to get help with a situation involving Stines. It could be as basic as daughter or mom talking to the judge about being worried that Stines was on drugs or was having psychiatric issues due to his recent change in behavior and asking him to assist them in getting help for Stines. In his current state, Stines could have viewed the judge offering help/trying to help the family set up services for him as the judge (and the places suggested to help Stines like rehab, therapy, etc) as "these people turning my family against me...trying to separate me from my family, breaking us up, trying to take them away from me."

I could then see Stamper in his retelling condensing that and using the word "kidnap" as an adjacent but not entirely accurate word choice.
 
Friday Fan said:
That doesn't make sense. I'm sorry. There are programs like this all over the country. Why would the sheriff murder him over that?
Cronyism is pretty much all over the place. Heck, might as well investigate the ankle bracelet company and the private detention center. (They always get kickbacks and they're involved with that sheriff deputy scandal)

I thought he murdered him because of his daughter and wife?
Click to expand...
I am not saying that a financial scandal such as this led to the shooting. I was simply replying to the comment wondering why the original post about if the financial investigation may have anything to do with the murder.

WE JUST DON’T KNOW AT THIS POINT. We can all speculate, nut that’s all it is at this point on our end - speculation.

We also don’t KNOW if it had anything to do with any real or perceived improprieties by the Judge towards the Sheriff’s daughter.
 
Seattle1 said:
One thing is for certain: during trial, it won't be Stamper who tells us what Stines said here but the Investigator who actually heard the statement (i.e., hearsay evidence not allowed at trail).

Given Stamper was one of the most evasive LE witnesses I've watched in a long time, could he have gotten the alleged statement by Stines wrong? Possibly. Then again, "kidnap" isn't exactly a word one generally substitutes in conversation.


Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with how long evidence is sealed when a grand jury is used but I imagine the KSP personnel who had contact with Stines will testify before the GJ, and the transcript eventually made available to the defense but when it's discovered-- I don't know.

And this ^^ is why I very much prefer charges by Information and Complaint! MOO

For reference, please see the preliminary hearing transcript by @Allabouttrial linked in the MEDIA thread.
Click to expand...
Agree! At trial, which will probably be three years from now and long after we have moved on to other cases, we will likely see a video of Stine's interview. (If one exists). It will probably last no more than a minute.

Everyone will disagree on the meaning and write elaborate paragraphs interpreting his one sentence. :D

I thought this was pretty much a slam dunk and didn't follow on WS.
Last week or so, I saw the differences of opinion and I was like,"what?"
I didn't follow again until the probable cause hearing when the shooting video was released.

Stamper was evasive and said the minimum to establish probably cause. MOO

Link to media forum:
MEDIA, MAPS, TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION* THREAD

MOO MOO I believe malice is there. Because I see it in the video. MOO

MOO Sadly, I feel that there were warning signs that Stines could be volatile, but because Stines and Mullins were colleagues, the judge did not anticipate the meeting turning violent. MOO This is just MOO.

This shooting is a reminder to judges, law enforcement, attorneys and other powerful people in the legal system that "professional courtesies" can go south quickly.

Both the judge and the sheriff are powerful people. In general, sheriffs tend to be more visible and are more well known than judges.

Powerful people, famous people (OJ, Robert Blake) and people who are notorious (Casey Anthony, John Gotti) do seem to get preferential treatment in court. So I guess I shouldn't expect much. MOO MOO MOO.
 
Last edited:
AugustWest said:
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.
Click to expand...

Quick question, and apologies if asked and answered -- in terms of the causal chain for "extreme emotional disturbance," does the causal element offered need to be factive and proven via evidence, or can it be a statement of more or less well-founded belief?

"I knew based on the following well-supported evidence that X was Y..."

OR

"I believed because Q that X was Y," despite no evidence to that effect.

Just wondering about the strength of foundation required for such a defence to be mounted and prevail in a circumstance like this where other key facts of a crime aren't in dispute (murder caught on video).

Temporal element also interest me, but seems like a different set of questions.
 
The alleged statement by Stines when he was taken into custody: "They're trying to kidnap my wife and kid"

Was this just a self serving statement by an individual and/or a lawman (acting in the capacity of the Sheriff) who just shot the Judge multiple times in his Chambers?

For example, why not "take" or "abduct"?

Pursuant to KRS § 509.040, Although the terms kidnapping and abduction are sometimes used interchangeably, abduction (abduct) is a broader category that generally does not require the threat or use of force.

IMO, seems to me that Stines never forgot his legal training of how/when to legally neutralize the threat where use of deadly force would be a hard sell under generic use of of "take" an object, possession, or person.

Based on his training and experience, I do believe it likely that Stines did use the term "kidnap" --giving him the most legal cover (defense options) for his actions, including the following reasonable fears. However, with nothing else to go on at this time, applying the threat of kidnapping by Mullins just makes it seem to me like some serious paranoia happening with Stines. MOO


KRS § 509.040 Kidnapping​

The charge of kidnapping is the longest and most detailed section of chapter 509. It includes exact definitions of the crime under Kentucky law as well as the various possible penalties that can be imposed under different circumstances. Depending on the exact situation, kidnapping can be charged as a Class B felony, a Class A felony, or a capital offense.

  • A person is guilty of kidnapping when he unlawfully restrains another person and when his intent is:
    • To hold him for ransom or reward; or
    • To accomplish or to advance the commission of a felony; or
    • To inflict bodily injury or to terrorize the victim or another; or
    • To interfere with the performance of a governmental or political function; or
    • To use him as a shield or hostage; or
    • To deprive the parents or guardian of the custody of a minor, when the person taking the minor is not a person exercising custodial control or supervision of the minor as the term “person exercising custodial control or supervision” is defined in KRS § 600.020.
  • Kidnapping is a Class B felony when the victim is released alive and in a safe place prior to trial, except as provided in this section.
  • Kidnapping is a Class A felony when the victim is released alive but the victim has suffered serious physical injury
    • During the kidnapping; or
    • As a result of not being released in a safe place; or
    • As a result of being released in any circumstances which are intended, known or should have been known to cause or lead to serious physical injury.
  • Kidnapping is a capital offense when the victim is not released alive or when the victim is released alive but subsequently dies as a result of:
    • Serious physical injuries suffered during the kidnapping; or
    • Not being released in a safe place; or
    • Being released in any circumstances which are intended, known or should have been known to cause or lead to the victim’s death.

KRS Chapter 509
 
Seattle1 said:
Interesting. Can OP cite a case in the last 10-20 years where this happened? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Not sure if this is what you’re looking for or not- but here are some articles and information dealing with the concept of jury nullification (and as it might be related to hung juries) in the past century- I believe (but don’t have readily available sources) that post civil war and prohibition era it was more of a “thing”- not saying or implying that it would/could/should be an option or exercised in this particular case- I originally brought it up because I didn’t know if the possibility was a national or regional option today, and or how it impacted prosecution/jury instructions- the Camden 28 and Scott Warren cases come to mind as possible modern examples
MOO



whyy.org

Camden 28 revisit court where they were tried for '71 break-in to protest Vietnam War

As war casualties mounted, several draft board raids occurred throughout the country. But the Camden 28 case was the only one where all defendants were acquitted.
whyy.org whyy.org

 
Seattle1 said:
Interesting. Can OP cite a case in the last 10-20 years where this happened? Thanks.
Click to expand...
It's a bit older than 20 years, but Jack Kevorkian's not guilty verdict is an example of jury nullification: he admitted to everything the state accused him of but argued that the actions were not murder, the jury agreed.


A good reason to move Stine's trial.

RadioLab also has a really interesting podcast on jury nullification for anyone interested: Null and Void
 
Seattle1 said:
Given Stamper was one of the most evasive LE witnesses I've watched in a long time, could he have gotten the alleged statement by Stines wrong? Possibly. Then again, "kidnap" isn't exactly a word one generally substitutes in conversation.
Click to expand...
I think hyperbole and a bad game of “hearsay telephone” might be at play-

“I got hijacked at work…”
“My boss is killing me…”
“Being held hostage by a job/contract…”
“So and so is trying Steal my partner..,”
“My partner is trying to silence me…”
“My ex is trying to crucify me and take my kids…”

Any and all of the above could be taken literally or figuratively depending on context… I have no clue what was said or meant- I wasn’t there-

And I can think where using “take” might mean “take against my will or their will” and be analogous to “kidnap” or abscond”

Similarly I can see scenarios where it might be akin to “take away” in that “so and so is trying to take someone’s girlfriend or spouse” and or meaning to turn them against another

Not knowing what was said or implied in context, I don’t have any frame of reference to interpret one way or the other-

Could be that all statements are actually congruent OR that there is significantly different intended meaning by the different word choices
All MOO
 
azure said:
It's a bit older than 20 years, but Jack Kevorkian's not guilty verdict is an example of jury nullification: he admitted to everything the state accused him of but argued that the actions were not murder, the jury agreed.


A good reason to move Stine's trial.

RadioLab also has a really interesting podcast on jury nullification for anyone interested: Null and Void
Click to expand...
I could not read OP's link but I recall jack Kevorkian was convicted of 2nd degree murder, released in 2007 after serving 8 years due to health reasons.

3/26/15

time.com

Why ‘Dr. Death’ Wanted to Be Charged with Murder

March 26, 1999: Dr. Jack Kevorkian is convicted of murder
time.com time.com
 
Seattle1 said:
I could not read OP's link but I recall jack Kevorkian was convicted of 2nd degree murder, released in 2007 after serving 8 years due to health reasons.

3/26/15

time.com

Why ‘Dr. Death’ Wanted to Be Charged with Murder

March 26, 1999: Dr. Jack Kevorkian is convicted of murder
time.com time.com
Click to expand...
It was his 3 Michigan assisted suicide cases, apologies for using the word "murder", he was on trial for assisting a suicide in those cases.
 
?!? said:
Anyone up to taking on the possibility of other witnesses hearing it slightly differently ("They took my wife and daughter," for instance)?

How about three different versions?
Click to expand...
Quite possibly, but it shouldn’t matter. They should be able to piece together the motive from this guy’s statements and those phones.
 
Seeing many comments here and elsewhere speculating that Judge Mullins could have been helping Stines wife and daughter escape a possible domestic violence situation and even allegations that an order of protection requested by Stines wife and signed by Mullins could have played a part in enraging Stines to fire his weapon at Mullins.

While I think all of the above could have angered Stines, I must say that I don't believe any of them would be ethically possible by Judge Mullins pursuant to the Code of Conduct for Judges in the US.

The closer the relationship (Appearance of Impropriety) such as these men who were said to be best friends of 20 years, where Stines once served as Mullins Bailiff for more than a decade before running for Sheriff in 2018, the mere perception of bias can undermine public confidence in the judicial system.

And If true the Stines women turned to Mullins for help, they'd both know Mullins was ethically bound to recuse himself from getting involved, friend or not, and instead point them in the direction of those who could independently assist them.

IME, generally NCO/PO of a sensitive, private nature-- especially involving LE, typically go before the Judge of a different County-- for obvious reasons.

After reviewing the shooting again (slow motion), I don't think Mullins initially understood how much danger he was in by Stines! He's literally scrambling beneath his desk trying to avoid the shots being fired at him. I don't know what Stines realized, imagined, or perceived at that moment but I think he totally surprised Mullins. JMO

Code of Conduct for United States Judges
 
Last edited:
Knox said:
Pardon my morbid comment, but there is no blood seen in the video at all. Particularly the last shot where he walks out, that appears to possibly be a head shot?
Click to expand...
This video is highly edited. You can't even see the slightest kickback from the gun as it fires, because those frames have been edited out. If you play it in .5 speed frame by frame you'll see what I mean.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 97 more.
Total: 257 (members: 98, guests: 159)

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
159
Total visitors
257
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,716
Messages
18,244,520
Members
234,435
Latest member
ProfKim
Back
Top