Kentucky - Judge killed, sheriff arrested in Letcher County courthouse shooting - Sep. 19, 2024 # 3

[Seattle1]

Under the rules of Criminal Procedure, the grand jury must indict the defendant within sixty days [of the preliminary hearing], or the defendant is discharged from bond and either released from custody, or their money is refunded. An attorney or pro se defendant is required to file a motion (or agreed order, check your county’s local practice), in order for the defendant to be discharged. If does not happen automatically. Also, look closely at the time rules in the Rules of Criminal Procedure. If the sixtieth day falls on a weekend, the actual deadline for indictment will be on the Monday following the weekend.

It is important to note that this is not a statute of limitations. Just because a defendant is discharged under the sixty-day rule does not mean the case is dismissed or cannot be indicted. The defendant is merely discharged from the obligation to post bond. Many times, it can be an extreme inconvenience to the defendant to be discharged from bond on the sixty-day rule. The government may well turn around the next week and indict the defendant, leading to an arrest warrant and a requirement to post a (potentially higher) bond. It is not always prudent to file sixty-day rule motions.

View Document - Kentucky Court Rules

govt.westlaw.com

A Criminal Defense Attorney’s Guide to Criminal Courts in Kentucky

baldanilaw.com

 

[Rosiebones]

It just dawned on me, with all the posts ref the phones having called, been called, saved, caught in an index, etc that I have no idea nor have given thought to, why and for what logical reason would the daughter and the judge have been having phone conversations? I am sure there are many and varied, but name one. No mentions of Stines wife calling.
So LE has talked to her and she has revealed a reason/subject. With this info, why has no commentary been made as to the interview showing the unimportance of these calls?
We know Stines shot the judge, on camera and is a fact. We know that is solid evidence of murder. Jury to interpret.
What we are seeking here is his motive for doing it, whether justified in his mind or ours is immaterial to guilt.
A motive or reason might have some sway with a jury as to his punishment.

One reason may be that the daughter was in contact with the judge in his official capacity, of behalf of her mother and herself, for advice on how to get help for her father. They may have been exploring involuntary placement in a treatment center or a restraining order etc. We only know bits and pieces about his behavior in the weeks/months prior to the shooting such as dramatic weight loss, preoccupation, quietness. His behavior at home may have been much more problematic, we just don't know.
The mother may not have had the freedom to make the connection like the daughter had. MOO MOO MOO MOO

 

[?!?]

One reason may be that the daughter was in contact with the judge in his official capacity, of behalf of her mother and herself, for advice on how to get help for her father. They may have been exploring involuntary placement in a treatment center or a restraining order etc. We only know bits and pieces about his behavior in the weeks/months prior to the shooting such as dramatic weight loss, preoccupation, quietness. His behavior at home may have been much more problematic, we just don't know.
The mother may not have had the freedom to make the connection like the daughter had. MOO MOO MOO MOO

Another reason may be my earlier 'theory' that daughter was covering for wife's relationship with judge...so all calls went through daughter. Both could then swear there was no sexual relationship between judge/daughter, also avoid any visibility that might exist because wife/sheriff shared phone account.

Also, judge may have said something insulting/triggering that set sheriff off, just prior to shooting (or at least defense claim to avoid murder charge).

 

[Ontario Mom]

But I am wondering why any call/conversation between the daughter and the judge. Surely there is a reason for he to call her or she to call him. but what. Such as a mundane call regarding setting up a birthday party. Would he speak to a group she was involved in? There has to be a reason, and as so many details in this case appear to be so unreasonable.
I mean life goes on daily, good or bad. But situations have causes, and causes have reason to occur.

If the conversations are not of concern, why this all about the phones ref the judge and the daughter?

If the calls/conversations have no connection to the shooting, why are they in a forensic lab? If they are, why not the daughters? If they take the daughters version of why the call, will they take Stines version (when/if) offered.
They apparently know Stines called his daughter on both phones. What is to learn further, that Stine's recited his plan to kill the judge? Are calls only date times, # to #, duration?

I'm left with the same questions myself as to the "why".
We can all speculate all day long but really, we don't much to go on.

jmo

 

[PrairieWind]

One reason may be that the daughter was in contact with the judge in his official capacity, of behalf of her mother and herself, for advice on how to get help for her father. They may have been exploring involuntary placement in a treatment center or a restraining order etc. We only know bits and pieces about his behavior in the weeks/months prior to the shooting such as dramatic weight loss, preoccupation, quietness. His behavior at home may have been much more problematic, we just don't know.
The mother may not have had the freedom to make the connection like the daughter had. MOO MOO MOO MOO

That kind of contact would have been inappropriate. There is a process involuntary placement and/or orders like that. So it would have been wrong for the Judge to have been having those type of conversations about a case/potential case outside of the process, and the Judge cannot be giving legal advise to someone.

 

[scapa]

Re motive -- I think there's a particular interest in what caused X to do Y when the crime features unusual circumstances that are not easily explained by the usual s*x (there ya go, WS bots)/ money/ power triad of reasons we see so often.

Here we have a preexisting friendship/ friendly relationship of long standing, a pair of typically high-character jobs in sheriff and judge and an execution-style murder in a place -- a judge's chambers -- often regarded as a sort of sacred space, or at least a very safe one.

Then there's a mysterious phone exchange, a dialling/ not dialling, and the immediate lead-up and murder caught on video -- without sound, of course.

It's a scenario out of Ellery Queen, and the how and where and when are already confirmed for us, So what's left is the why -- and it's a great big echoing Why? with all kinds of room for speculation.

Any criminal trial won't need the why -- but as the only missing element, we're going to want to know, in order to explain the unexplainable.

If any recent case was a whydunit -- with a literal, not a metaphysical Why? this is it, IMO. I get it.

 

[PrairieWind]

Re motive -- I think there's a particular interest in what caused X to do Y when the crime features unusual circumstances that are not easily explained by the usual s*x (there ya go, WS bots)/ money/ power triad of reasons we see so often.

Here we have a preexisting friendship/ friendly relationship of long standing, a pair of typically high-character jobs in sheriff and judge and an execution-style murder in a place -- a judge's chambers -- often regarded as a sort of sacred space, or at least a very safe one.

Then there's a mysterious phone exchange, a dialling/ not dialling, and the immediate lead-up and murder caught on video -- without sound, of course.

It's a scenario out of Ellery Queen, and the how and where and when are already confirmed for us, So what's left is the why -- and it's a great big echoing Why? with all kinds of room for speculation.

Any criminal trial won't need the why -- but as the only missing element, we're going to want to know, in order to explain the unexplainable.

If any recent case was a whydunit -- with a literal, not a metaphysical Why? this is it, IMO. I get it.

It is very much like a movie/"Murder She Wrote"/pulp fiction etc murder. And while the prosecution doesn't need to present a "why" or motive, depending on what it is, the Defense may very well make it clear why this occurred.

 

[?!?]

It is very much like a movie/"Murder She Wrote"/pulp fiction etc murder. And while the prosecution doesn't need to present a "why" or motive, depending on what it is, the Defense may very well make it clear why this occurred.

New movie/book genre: "Why Done It" ?

 

[ilovewings]

It is very much like a movie/"Murder She Wrote"/pulp fiction etc murder. And while the prosecution doesn't need to present a "why" or motive, depending on what it is, the Defense may very well make it clear why this occurred.

We are all waiting with bated breath to get more info as to motive!!!

 

[fred&edna]

I've always said, We all want to know why Mrs Peacock murdered Professor Plum with the lead pipe in the conservatory. It's as simple as that.

jmo

 

[Deleted member 296739]

I've always said, We all want to know why Mrs Peacock murdered Professor Plum with the lead pipe in the conservatory. It's as simple as that.

jmo

Exactly!

 

[PrairieWind]

I've always said, We all want to know why Mrs Peacock murdered Professor Plum with the lead pipe in the conservatory. It's as simple as that.

jmo

Mr. Boddy was the victim in Clue.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Mr. Boddy was the victim in Clue.

Buy why??? I want to know why

 

[fred&edna]

Mr. Boddy was the victim in Clue.

I'm now saying... we all want to know why Mrs Peacock murdered Mr Boddy with the lead pipe in the conservatory. It's as simple as that.

Even though PW may argue SOCCDI (Some other Clue character did it)

jmo

 

[Deleted member 296739]

I'm now saying... we all want to know why Mrs Peacock murdered Mr Boddy with the lead pipe in the conservatory. It's as simple as that.

Even though PW may argue SOCCDI (Some other Clue character did it)

jmo

Col. Mustard with the rope in the dining room

And I’d still want to know WHY?

 

[Seattle1]

What we are seeking here is his motive for doing it, whether justified in his mind or ours is immaterial to guilt.
A motive or reason might have some sway with a jury as to his punishment.

^^rsbm

Yes, the difference being a possible death penalty compared to 20 year sentence!

We've known this since the prelim and subsequent media statements by Stines defense attorney Jeremy Bartley where he desperately argued albeit unsuccessfully to connect Stines use of Mullins phone to the crime to mitigate the murder the world witnessed on video, and reduce this to manslaughter, and more recently, cite to various media that the shooting was unplanned, and that Judge Mullins was killed in the "heat of passion" (i.e., Stines experiencing an "extreme emotional disturbance").

“For us, the highest level of culpability should be manslaughter based on the partial defense of extreme emotional disturbance.”

New details about ex-sheriff's motive for killing judge: 'Heat of passion'

A former Kentucky sheriff accused of killing a judge was experiencing an "extreme emotional disturbance," his attorney said.

www.newsweek.com

Lawyer for Sheriff Who Killed Judge Says It Wasn't Planned, Will Use 'Extreme Emotional Disturbance' Defense

A lawyer for Shawn “Mickey” Stines, the Kentucky sheriff accused of killing District Judge Kevin Mullins, says the fatal shooting wasn’t planned, arguing that the incident 'occurred in the heat of passion.'

people.com

Kentucky sheriff allegedly killed judge in the ‘heat of passion,’ his lawyer says

“It was not something that was planned and occurred in the heat of passion.”

nypost.com

 

[Sunny Day]

This may have already been explained (I am way behind), but what if when he typed in his daughter's number it popped up as a contact, but with a fictitious name. That would definitely have been a red flag.

 

[Seattle1]

This may have already been explained (I am way behind), but what if when he typed in his daughter's number it popped up as a contact, but with a fictitious name. That would definitely have been a red flag.

I don't think this is any longer a concern-- as confirmed by Mickey Stines own defense recently when they finally acknowledged that there's nothing they've seen that would substantiate a claim of anything improper between Mullins and the 17 yr old daughter -- which I think would include the daughter's phone saved under a fictitious name.

Social media has been ablaze with unverified rumors, but at least one can apparently be put to rest. In an interview with Ann Mercogliono on CBS’s Inside Edition, defense attorneys for Stines said there is no evidence of anything improper between Mullins and the 17-year-old daughter.

“ There’s a lot of wild speculation at this point,” attorney Kerri Bartley said. “There is nothing we’ve seen that would substantiate that claim.”

[..]

“He had a sincere belief that his wife and daughter were in danger,” Jeremy Bartley said. “The emotions rose to such a level at that point that he was unable to control his actions.”

 

[jepop]

Motive vs Mens Rea​

Motive is often confused with mens rea which means "guilty mind" and refers to the defendant's culpability or intent to commit the criminal act.

To be clear, while motive might help the prosecution explain why Stines executed Mullins in his Chambers, it's not necessary to convict him. There was no motive presented at the PC hearing and the grand jury doesn't need one to indict him for murder.

Citing examples posited on the thread thus far, whether Stines perceived drug treatment financial fraud or wrong doing against his child, it doesn't make Stines any less guilty from acting as the judge and jury here, and following through with intentionally shooting Mullins multiple times and leaving him to die on the floor of his Chambers that the world witnessed on video.

If the defense wants to introduce claims beyond Stines relied on speculation and hearsay, he's going to have to produce specific evidence to show a nexus between his claim outlined in his defense Motion that Stines didn't intend to kill Mullins.

As we just saw in the Delphi trial, case law is quite clear that the nexus must not be based on speculation, conjecture, rumors, or hearsay, but rather on admissible evidence.

KY 507.020 MURDER

Thanks. Good clarifying and informative post. Was always curious about this distinction which is an important one. Jmo

 

[Rosiebones]

Why isn't he out on bail?