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

[al66pine]

Intent to Cause Death?

IANAL…. yet wouldn’t the act of simply raising a loaded firearm and shooting at a victim once include the ‘intent’ in a case like this? And add seven more shots IIUC. Another question that might arise is whether the victim also may have had a loaded firearm.
And @al66pine this isn’t directed at you, just using this as a reference for the question.
And this does not take any possible elements of motive into consideration. MOO

@I AM not Sherlock H Thanks for your comment.
Agreeing that GENERALLY when a person w a loaded firearm, unholsters it, points it at another human a few feet away, and fires it at the other person, in many/most/virtually all situations, inferring something LESS THAN ---
the shooter had intent to cause death --- requires some mental gymnastics.
Especially when shooter continues firing several more rounds.

In some situations, def't/def atty may argue shooter did not have intent to cause death, because of def't's claimed INCAPACITY to FORM intent. Say, by alcoholic intoxication, hallucinogenic/psychedelic drugs (a statutory defense in some jurisdictions. I did not search re KY statutes).

If only one shot is fired, A def't might claim he didn't know it was loaded or
that his index finger slipped on the trigger, did not intend to fire the gun.
Prob'ly a lame def attempt for THIS def't, even if he did not fire again.

And reading ^ post again, I noticed it referred to in THIS case.

From little but presumably factual MSM I've seen, there's no indication of ingestion of alcohol or mind bending drugs, so yep, w. circumstances HERE,
--- re INTENT to CAUSE DEATH, prosecutor works w some possible advantages besides easy jury inference that by firing, sheriff intended to cause death (i.e., multiple witnesses as to def't behavior that day & afternoon, not indicating booze or drug ingestion, who heard the multiple rounds, vid cam footage confirming that timing of rounds fired, etc.)
--- re INTENT, def atty most definitely has an uphill battle to try to show no intent, if they want to try to show that. Remember def. does not have to put on any witnesses or evidence, can argue weakness of pros' case.
Any way for def atty to do that w'out putting the def't on the stand to testify?
Anything def't can testify to negate intent? I did not mean to kill him? Or just joking around? Feeble imo.

As ^ post mentions, maybe the judge had a firearm too. Loaded or unloaded, maybe crank up a self defense argument. IDK.

Thanks @I AM not Sherlock H for prompting more thoughts on intent.

 

[Simply Southern]

I mean, we could of course be reading something into nothing, but it’s what I would do if certain things were true.

Right now all we have is the small town rumor mill, and I can’t wait for facts to come out here.

We just have to treat what we read with a great deal of skepticism, as it wouldn’t be the first time a completely inaccurate picture has been painted in the early days of a murder case.

A couple times I’ve wound up feeling pretty stupid.

I was a little surprised. Wouldn't an autopsy be performed and usually takes several days? I noticed no burial service listed, maybe a later date.

Having the visitation and service at the HS, it would need to be a weekend.

Moo

 

[MassGuy]

I was a little surprised. Wouldn't an autopsy be performed and usually takes several days? I noticed no burial service listed, maybe a later date.

Having the visitation and service at the HS, it would need to be a weekend.

Moo

The autopsy here would be a quick procedure if you had someone on hand to do it, just because of the nature of this crime. Normally we’re talking about victims who weren’t discovered right away, and there’s a mystery as to what occurred.

We know who did it. We know how he did it. We know when he did it.

How many times was he hit? Where was he hit? What damage did those rounds do?

 

[Snoods]

RE: them exchanging phones before the shooting, could this have been an agreement between the two of them to show one another that they weren’t recording audio with their phone during the meeting? It’s been reported that the judge’s chambers records video, not audio. Could the motive of the shooter have been his discovery that some audio had been recorded without his knowledge to be used as blackmail of some sort?

First thing I thought of when I heard they exchanged phones beforehand. It’s a weird detail.

BBM I think you could be right about this.

He walked in there, said “We need to talk about something serious. I’m not recording this.”

That gives Sheriff a reason to lock the door. Don’t want anyone interrupting.

Judge said “Me either.”

People familiar with the Alex Murdaugh case, remember how after the boating accident, he showed his phone to one of the dads involved, even leaving it in his SUV to prove he wasn’t recording anything?

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Thinking similarly here too @Parsnip …. and the bigger problem might have been what might have been revealed or disclosed? And have to wonder - IIUC reports on the phones….. perhaps one had cued the other that they had received something on their phone? And the other then says…. me too? And then realization we better compare? Yet didn’t one or both realize that a video camera would be running? Even if no audio? And there was a supposed deposition or something for the sheriff next week IIRC? Pure speculation on my part until more becomes apparent. MOO

Yes, iirc that deposition was slated for Monday.

It seems that losing his job wasn't part of the motive. jmoo He was retiring and not interested in reelection. (according to reports)

It's perplexing. I hope we are able to learn of his motive before trial.

 

[nerosleuth]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
I do know that by law, a coroner is required to do an autopsy even if it was oblivious that homicide was the cause of death where a person was found deceased.

The autopsy report and coroner's testimony is part of the evidence that the prosecutor will present in court of law during a murder trial.

I've never heard of an autopsy not being performed on a homicide victim.

A criminal defense attorney would have a field day in the courtroom if their client was being tried for murder and an autopsy was never performed in the first place.

 

[Twick]

Since the man who shot the judge wasn't the same man forcing women into sex in the judges chambers, I'm not seeing the connection.

The sheriff was the man in question’s superior and was facing discipline for not preventing the abuse.

 

[Cryptic]

The sheriff was the man in question’s superior and was facing discipline for not preventing the abuse.

Tossing it out....

The lawsuit possibility as motive does not resonate with me. My un informed guess is the lawsuit is low grade and designed to hustle a fast settlement before dismissal.

In the end, its hard to prevent actions taken by others, every department in the country has bad employees, and every manager, sheriff, captain etc. could always have done something "better".

The Sheriff may of been getting free and effective representation by the State of Kentucky as the allegation was based on his official capacity as a sheriff.

I am going with @whitelilac - something far more personal is the source of this.

 

[RANCH]

The sheriff was the man in question’s superior and was facing discipline for not preventing the abuse.

What kind of discipline?

 

[Seattle1]

The sheriff was the man in question’s superior and was facing discipline for not preventing the abuse.

Not true. The depo was for a civil suit -- a money grab. KY has not banned qualified immunity which protects the elected Sheriff. Following the depos, the plaintiff had already moved to request the case be referred to Mediation. Plaintiff never intended to go to trial, they want a settlement yet the Complaint failed to state a claim for which the Court can properly grant relief.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65590626/adkins-v-fields/

 

[KonaHonu]

Not true. The depo was for a civil suit -- a money grab. KY has not banned qualified immunity which protects the elected Sheriff. Following the depos, the plaintiff had already moved to request the case be referred to Mediation. Plaintiff never intended to go to trial, they want a settlement yet the Complaint failed to state a claim for which the Court can properly grant relief.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65590626/adkins-v-fields/

I really don't think the lawsuit has anything to do with this. Stines was only being sued in his official capacity. He would not need to pay anything personally if he lost. The county would have to pay. The deputy who committed the crimes is being sued in both his official and personal capacity. That is clear in the documents at the posted link.

 

[KonaHonu]

I do know that by law, a coroner is required to do an autopsy even if it was oblivious that homicide was the cause of death where a person was found deceased.

The autopsy report and coroner's testimony is part of the evidence that the prosecutor will present in court of law during a murder trial.

I've never heard of an autopsy not being performed on a homicide victim.

A criminal defense attorney would have a field day in the courtroom if their client was being tried for murder and an autopsy was never performed in the first place.

This link is to the coroner's office in a different Kentucky county but it explains the rules around autopsies in Kentucky:

COMMON QUESTIONS | FCCO

www.franklincountycoronerky.com

 

[Boxer]

I really don't think the lawsuit has anything to do with this. Stines was only being sued in his official capacity. He would not need to pay anything personally if he lost. The county would have to pay. The deputy who committed the crimes is being sued in both his official and personal capacity. That is clear in the documents at the posted link.

Unless the Sheriff had been doing things that were not official actions that would not be covered.

 

[Boxer]

If the sheriff pleads guilty, MOO no one will ever know why, except for the sheriff and the investigators who saw the phones.

 

[KonaHonu]

Unless the Sheriff had been doing things that were not official actions that would not be covered.

No, even if he were, the lawsuit only names him in his official capacity.

ETA: They can always amend the lawsuit if additional discovery turns up something, and it definitely could if, for example, the judge confronted him with evidence that he was in on the underlying scheme that the deputy was convicted of, even if not criminal. But as of right now he has no more chance of having to pay personally than you or I do because, like him, we are not named in the suit.

 

[mickey2942]

What would drive someone so crazy, especially a sheriff, who are usually stable people, to do an impulsive act like shooting a judge? Was it impulsive?

It is interesting to try to understand the reason behind the behavior. Unless we want to delve into possession. Which, more and more, I am beginning to wonder if people are actually being taken over by some entity, because so many crimes lately are inexplicable...

 

[iamshadow21]

What would drive someone so crazy, especially a sheriff, who are usually stable people, to do an impulsive act like shooting a judge? Was it impulsive?

It is interesting to try to understand the reason behind the behavior. Unless we want to delve into possession. Which, more and more, I am beginning to wonder if people are actually being taken over by some entity, because so many crimes lately are inexplicable...

I suspect some long simmering animosity that culminated in rage. But not impulsive, this is a cold action.

This feels very calculated. He planned exactly when and where and how. This wasn't a heated argument that went wrong. He went there to execute him.

MOO

 

[KonaHonu]

I suspect some long simmering animosity that culminated in rage. But not impulsive, this is a cold action.

This feels very calculated. He planned exactly when and where and how. This wasn't a heated argument that went wrong. He went there to execute him.

MOO

IMO it has to be personal. I don't put much credence in some of the rumors floating around online but I can imagine some scenarios in a small town that could have enraged the sheriff.

 

[Angelcat13]

If the judge is the one who started the ball rolling on the lawsuit, firing the deputy, etc, my thought was that maybe the sheriff was angry with him for exposing it.

Sorry, but I’m going in the opposite direction of this theory. (I respect we are all allowed our own opinions.)

 

[Angelcat13]

I suspect some long simmering animosity that culminated in rage. But not impulsive, this is a cold action.

This feels very calculated. He planned exactly when and where and how. This wasn't a heated argument that went wrong. He went there to execute him.

MOO

The “quietness” of the Sheriff at lunch that day really makes me wonder if he was struggling with what he wanted to and/or felt he needed to do - whether to protect/avenge someone close to him or the community in general - and his (likely) belief in the legal system and right and wrong.