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

[ch_13]

If this case goes to trial, will the fact that the shooting video has probably been viewed by the jury pool make that much difference in giving Stines a fair trial?

I believe that it doesn't matter much if a juror viewed the video today or at the time of trial. It's clear what the video shows and the evidence that it gives a jury is not debatable.

Sheriff Stines is shown shooting Judge Mullins. The jury will have to decide if Stines is guilty of whatever he is indicted for based on all of the evidence presented to them by both the state and the defense and not just the video. JMO.

I think it makes a big difference. It's not just seeing the video, it's also that the video will get endlessly replayed, talked about and debated over. Everyone in the county will have their opinions set by the time of the trial. Jurors are supposed to go into a trial with an open mind, but it makes it that much more difficult when they have a preconceived notion about what happened. (People who study this sort of thing know that the longer you hold an opinion the harder it is to give it up.)

Additionally, as others have mentioned the video is being shown without any context. And context can be important. How many times have we seen a heavily edited video that causes a huge uproar, and when the full video is shown, it changes how people view the situation? (I don't necessarily think that's what's happening here, but the defense has a right to present its view of what happened immediately following the prosecution's case, and not years later.)

 

[RANCH]

I think it makes a big difference. It's not just seeing the video, it's also that the video will get endlessly replayed, talked about and debated over. Everyone in the county will have their opinions set by the time of the trial. Jurors are supposed to go into a trial with an open mind, but it makes it that much more difficult when they have a preconceived notion about what happened. (People who study this sort of thing know that the longer you hold an opinion the harder it is to give it up.)

Additionally, as others have mentioned the video is being shown without any context. And context can be important. How many times have we seen a heavily edited video that causes a huge uproar, and when the full video is shown, it changes how people view the situation? (I don't necessarily think that's what's happening here, but the defense has a right to present its view of what happened immediately following the prosecution's case, and not years later.)

Do you feel that the charges should be dismissed because the video was shown? Or can an unbiased and fair jury still be seated?

 

[worm]

Do you feel that the charges should be dismissed because the video was shown? Or can an unbiased and fair jury still be seated?

I don’t know if it makes a difference legally but if I recall, the judges chair was moving right as the guy returns with the final shots. It seems like an indication that Mullins was still alive and moving so I tend to think that would be a point to make to a jury.

 

[Luna20]

I'm unclear on your point. You say both where doing shady things and mention Stines and the judge but not the actual perpetrator who was Fields.

Did Fields bribe Sheriff Stines or the judge? Or both? Or did Stines bribe the judge? I'm confused again. JMO.

I live confused! Joking aside I was referring to whatever they talked about at lunch that had to be talked about in private.

I don’t understand why the judge was allowing the sexual escapades in his chambers. That’s what I meant by ‘shady’ things.

 

[ch_13]

Do you feel that the charges should be dismissed because the video was shown? Or can an unbiased and fair jury still be seated?

No dismissal, but I suspect we'll get a change of venue.

 

[katydid23]

Not likely as part of an arrest. They could have applied for a warrant to get a blood sample, but they would need some sort of suspicion that drugs/alcohol were a factor. I haven't heard of anything to that effect.

I'm sure that is right in terms of a murder suspect. But in terms of an officer, on duty----my son was LE---and at every officer involved shooting, the officer was tested for drugs and alcohol if it was a lethal situation. It was an automatic rule.

ETA: Just Googled---seems that Kentucky might not have that rule

Was Stines technically on duty during the shooting?

 

[Seattle1]

I don’t know if it makes a difference legally but if I recall, the judges chair was moving right as the guy returns with the final shots. It seems like an indication that Mullins was still alive and moving so I tend to think that would be a point to make to a jury.

I agree @worm. I think that was clear indication of Stines intent when he paused, and fired those additional shots at Mullins before he walked out the door. He wanted certainty Mullins was dead.

 

[Friday Fan]

I live confused! Joking aside I was referring to whatever they talked about at lunch that had to be talked about in private.

I don’t understand why the judge was allowing the sexual escapades in his chambers. That’s what I meant by ‘shady’ things.

Was he "allowing" it? To the best my knowledge didn't know about it.

 

[Friday Fan]

I'm sure that is right in terms of a murder suspect. But in terms of an officer, on duty----my son was LE---and at every officer involved shooting, the officer was tested for drugs and alcohol if it was a lethal situation. It was an automatic rule.

ETA: Just Googled---seems that Kentucky might not have that rule

Was Stines technically on duty during the shooting?

A sheriff is never off duty.

I think for trial purposes it's helpful to know. But my hunch is they drug test LE to determine if they are "fit for employment"

 

[katydid23]

A sheriff is never off duty.

I think for trial purposes it's helpful to know. But my hunch is they drug test LE to determine if they are "fit for employment"

I think the LE routine drug tests are kind of a myth. It's a big expense and from what I've heard, they don't really test often unless there is reason to believe a specific officer might have issues.

But if an officer takes part in an incident that ends in someone's death, they do test for alcohol and drugs, mostly as protection for the officer. They know there could be upcoming lawsuits and it is important to show there was nothing in their system---so they do the test at a hospital, not in police dept, so it won't be questioned by opposing counsel in lawsuit.

 

[sunspun]

I live confused! Joking aside I was referring to whatever they talked about at lunch that had to be talked about in private.

I don’t understand why the judge was allowing the sexual escapades in his chambers. That’s what I meant by ‘shady’ things.

How could he allow it if he did not know about it?

 

[Luna20]

How could he allow it if he did not know about it?

I didn’t know that he did not know. I haven’t read the docs from Stine’s previous case.

But he would have had to know when Mullins was coming and going if he didn’t want to be caught.

A judge’s schedule constantly changes. There are so many moving parts it is always subject to change. Seems he would had to have inside information about where the judge was.

All my assumptions, as I haven’t looked at anything from the Sex In Chambers case.

Any word on if there was video in chambers then?

Was he "allowing" it? To the best my knowledge didn't know about it.

 

[Seattle1]

I don’t understand why the judge was allowing the sexual escapades in his chambers. That’s what I meant by ‘shady’ things.

^^rsbm

I don't understand, how despite several replies to OP's repeated allegations, that there's no evidence of Mullins ever having had knowledge of deputy Fields abuses in his Chambers, OP continues to cite Mullins as allowing sexual escapades in his chambers, and labeling him shady, without any evidence to support such claims!

The man is a murder victim who was never criminally indicted or charged in the "sexual escapade" investigation involving his chambers, or subsequent civil lawsuit by the plaintiffs.

 

[sunspun]

I didn’t know that he did not know. I haven’t read the docs from Stine’s previous case.

But he would have had to know when Mullins was coming and going if he didn’t want to be caught.

A judge’s schedule constantly changes. There are so many moving parts it is always subject to change. Seems he would had to have inside information about where the judge was.

All my assumptions, as I haven’t looked at anything from the Sex In Chambers case.

Any word on if there was video in chambers then?

No, it's known that the camera was only installed after that. In fact, Fields is on record for saying that was one reason he chose the chambers for this, because it was the only place in the courthouse w/no cameras. Seems like an exaggeration there to me, but ok. Just another interesting fact, Fields used the judge's chambers AND his bathroom for the late night acts w/defendant! Although most of their liaisons happened in Fields' vehicle.

 

[Luna20]

^^rsbm

I don't understand, how despite several replies to OP's repeated allegations, that there's no evidence of Mullins ever having had knowledge of deputy Fields abuses in his Chambers, OP continues to cite Mullins as allowing sexual escapades in his chambers, and labeling him shady, without any evidence to support such claims!

The man is a murder victim who was never criminally indicted or charged in the "sexual escapade" investigation involving his chambers, or subsequent civil lawsuit by the plaintiffs.

Understood. The pieces I have read aren’t fact checked. Please note below was my disclosure at the end of that post.


“All my assumptions, as I haven’t looked at anything from the Sex In Chambers case”