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

[tlcya]

'The video shows he knows what he's doing is wrong. If you don't know what you're doing is wrong, you don't usher everybody else out of the room, and you don't go ahead and make sure the door is closed,' he said.

'Those are all things that show that he has an ability to make cognizant decisions.'
Bad news for Kentucky sheriff who shot judge dead in his chambers

I tend to agree with this. Him clearing the room and locking the door prior to pulling out his duty weapon and firing multiple shots shows an awareness of what he was doing and that it was murder.

 

[Seattle1]

For more than six months, the defense has used Stines deposition in the civil lawsuit to explain his behavior on Sept 19, 2024 without offering any details. Glad to finally see MSM link the deposition transcript here so all can read that this was nothing more than a defense buffer while it lasted-- but utter rubbish nonetheless!

First, be reminded that Stines wasn't being sued personally in the civil lawsuit. In fact, as the mere placeholder for Letcher County's "pocket," once Stines was arrested for murder, he was dropped from the civil lawsuit, and the new Sheriff was substituted in his place as the named defendant.

Second, on the date of Stines deposition, former Deputy Fields had already been convicted, completed his sentence, and released from jail! In other words, there was nothing unknown to Stines about the civil lawsuit and pending deposition on this date that was going to suddenly shock Stines into a murderous rage-- causing him to lock Mullins inside his Chambers and execute him!

And my heart continues to go out to the Mullins family who have to continue to hear wild rumors and speculation about a man who tragically lost his life while sitting at his desk. Contrary to popular belief, Fields admitted under oath (deposition & plea agreement) to having sexual contact with his victim in the bathroom and hallway by the Judge’s secretary’s office, but never in the judge’s chambers.

More recently, per the federal docket, the defendants have filed for Summary Judgement, and seek the civil suit dismissed-- citing the suit time-barred (allege plaintiffs filed after the statute of limitations expired). In response, the plaintiffs are requesting to re-open discovery, and hold Summary Judgement Motions in Abeyance. The Court has not ruled on these requests.

I hope Stines is receiving medical treatment in jail. His trial seems years away and I hope he lives to tell us what happened. MOO

CM/ECF U.S. Eastern District of Kentucky Version 6.3.2

ecf.kyed.uscourts.gov

 

[jepop]

'The video shows he knows what he's doing is wrong. If you don't know what you're doing is wrong, you don't usher everybody else out of the room, and you don't go ahead and make sure the door is closed,' he said.

'Those are all things that show that he has an ability to make cognizant decisions.'
Bad news for Kentucky sheriff who shot judge dead in his chambers

I tend to agree with this. Him clearing the room and locking the door prior to pulling out his duty weapon and firing multiple shots shows an awareness of what he was doing and that it was murder.

Seems premeditated to me.

 

[OldAce]

It seems the plaintiffs attorney in the Ben Fields case are asking for another deposition of Stines.
Based on some statement made by Stines attorney referring to the last deposition.
Getting complicated.

Attorney seek a second deposition from Stines​

By Mountain Eagle Staff
on May 28, 2025
By SAM ADAMS

The plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit against former deputy sheriff Ben Fields are seeking to keep the discovery portion of the case open another six months and asked the judge to order another deposition with former sheriff Shawn Mickey Stines. The request is based on a state- ment the defense attorney in Stines’s murder case made on a tabloid TV […]

Sorry! An active online subscription is required to access this content.​

Your subscription may have expired, or this content is not included in your membersh

 

[KonaHonu]

It seems the plaintiffs attorney in the Ben Fields case are asking for another deposition of Stines.
Based on some statement made by Stines attorney referring to the last deposition.
Getting complicated.

Attorney seek a second deposition from Stines​

By Mountain Eagle Staff
on May 28, 2025
By SAM ADAMS

The plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit against former deputy sheriff Ben Fields are seeking to keep the discovery portion of the case open another six months and asked the judge to order another deposition with former sheriff Shawn Mickey Stines. The request is based on a state- ment the defense attorney in Stines’s murder case made on a tabloid TV […]

Sorry! An active online subscription is required to access this content.​

Your subscription may have expired, or this content is not included in your membersh

I went back and watched the interview his defense team did with Inside Edition. I think that fits with "tabloid TV" but I did not hear anything that would seem to be remotely related to the lawsuit. Am I missing something?

 

[OldAce]

I went back and watched the interview his defense team did with Inside Edition. I think that fits with "tabloid TV" but I did not hear anything that would seem to be remotely related to the lawsuit. Am I missing something?

I do not know. I dropped my digital ?$ for ? days on The Mountain Eagle when we got slow here.
Just hit the website today to see if any ref and saw that. During my time there, nothing was in the Eagle not seen alongside other sources. Even the "Speak My Piece "rumor's were old news.

 

[KonaHonu]

Sadly, I don't think we will ever know the true story on this one. I think there is something MUCH bigger going on but I think it extends to some powerful people who will be able to keep details from coming out.

It's clear that Stines killed the judge and that would not be justified, legally or morally, regardless of who was involved in something shady and what actually happened.

To your (OldAce) point about the courtroom being a good venue to spill the truth, I agree, but he could have just pistol-whipped the judge to get to court.

I've been away for a while and have not really kept up with this case since November. I saw the bodycam video of Stines talking to the KSP and he seemed genuinely in fear for his life. He did not sound paranoid to me. He seemed like he knew he knew things that could get him killed. I get the impression that he was pushed to the point of not thinking he had any real choice, that he had already lost everything.

I'm not defending the guy. I'm inclined to think he was involved in whatever the "big scheme" was but was not prepared to protect himself the way others could when things got out of hand. I don't think it has anything to do with a sex scandal.

This is all my opinion!

 

[FromGermany1]

Sadly, I don't think we will ever know the true story on this one. I think there is something MUCH bigger going on but I think it extends to some powerful people who will be able to keep details from coming out.

It's clear that Stines killed the judge and that would not be justified, legally or morally, regardless of who was involved in something shady and what actually happened.

To your (OldAce) point about the courtroom being a good venue to spill the truth, I agree, but he could have just pistol-whipped the judge to get to court.

I've been away for a while and have not really kept up with this case since November. I saw the bodycam video of Stines talking to the KSP and he seemed genuinely in fear for his life. He did not sound paranoid to me. He seemed like he knew he knew things that could get him killed. I get the impression that he was pushed to the point of not thinking he had any real choice, that he had already lost everything.

I'm not defending the guy. I'm inclined to think he was involved in whatever the "big scheme" was but was not prepared to protect himself the way others could when things got out of hand. I don't think it has anything to do with a sex scandal.

This is all my opinion!

bbm
I would agree to all, what you said, but NOT to your penultimate sentence and opinion.

 

[OldAce]

Kona Honu,
1. Agree with: think there is something MUCH bigger going on but I think it extends to some powerful people who will be able to keep details from coming out.
2. Do not agree with: he could have just pistol-whipped the judge to get to court. He mid level...
3. I do not think he was involved/participant, but became aware: I'm inclined to think he was involved in whatever the "big scheme" was but was not prepared to protect himself the way others could when things got out of hand.
4: Option is: Drug situation in area. I don't think it has anything to do with a sex scandal.
2.

 

[Kudzuu]

Motion to dismiss

This doesn't surprise me at all.

It probably won't be dismissed but at some point IMO he'll get away with it.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Motion to dismiss

This doesn't surprise me at all.

It probably won't be dismissed but at some point IMO he'll get away with it.

Curious why you think he'll get away with it?

 

[KonaHonu]

Motion to dismiss

This doesn't surprise me at all.

It probably won't be dismissed but at some point IMO he'll get away with it.

Yeah, not surprising. His lawyers make a good argument for dismissal because the state screwed up. But I doubt he will get a dismissal but he may get bail.

 

[arielilane]

NEW: Defense for Sheriff Mickey Stines today filed a motion to dismiss the murder indictment and a request for a bond hearing. Stines is charged with the murder of Judge Kevin Mullins in the judge's chambers.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1930379930962981093

 

[arielilane]

Attorneys for Stines also filed a motion for a bond hearing. The filing says no bond has been set. They are asking for that hearing to be set, once Stines completes his mental evaluation, which is set for this month.

Former Ky. sheriff accused of killing judge files motion to dismiss indictment

Former Letcher County Sheriff Shawn “Mickey” Stines has filed a motion to dismiss his indictment.

www.wkyt.com

Download this PDF

 

[arielilane]

The motion argues that "The grand jury asked questions and were prevented from hearing complete answers," including mental health information that was not disclosed.

They argue that Detective Clayton Stamper testified to "multiple misleading statements" before the grand jury, leading to an indictment.

Attorneys for Shawn 'Mickey' Stines file motion to dismiss murder indictment

Attorneys for Shawn 'Mickey' Stines, a former Letcher County sheriff accused of killing Judge Kevin Mullins in his chambers, have filed a motion to dismiss an indictment charging Stines with murder.

www.lex18.com

6.4.2025

View the full timeline of the case here.

 

[KonaHonu]

The motion argues that "The grand jury asked questions and were prevented from hearing complete answers," including mental health information that was not disclosed.

They argue that Detective Clayton Stamper testified to "multiple misleading statements" before the grand jury, leading to an indictment.

Attorneys for Shawn 'Mickey' Stines file motion to dismiss murder indictment

Attorneys for Shawn 'Mickey' Stines, a former Letcher County sheriff accused of killing Judge Kevin Mullins in his chambers, have filed a motion to dismiss an indictment charging Stines with murder.

www.lex18.com

6.4.2025

View the full timeline of the case here.

Yes, but I think the more convincing argument is that the prosecutor failed to record the grand jury proceeding as required by law in Kentucky. There is even precedent for dismissing an indictment for that specific reason. I really don't expect him to get a dismissal but I found that argument more compelling than Stamper giving misleading and incomplete answers.

 

[Kudzuu]

Yes, but I think the more convincing argument is that the prosecutor failed to record the grand jury proceeding as required by law in Kentucky. There is even precedent for dismissing an indictment for that specific reason. I really don't expect him to get a dismissal but I found that argument more compelling than Stamper giving misleading and incomplete answers.

Very telling IMO.

 

[Cryptic]

Regardless of his profession and sworn duty, Could one ever personally imagine a set of circumstances where someone might do what the sheriff did?

I can.

For me, the motive would be grounded in the Honor concept. In past generations, the culture in the area (Appalachia) tolerated certain levels of violence in defense of "Honor".

Moving into modern times and the murder, my vague suspicion is that the murderer had stipulated that:

- Person "P" is not to be brought into activity "A". -or-
- Situation "S" is a purely internal family matter and that the victim is not to involve himself in it. -or-
- Person "P" is to be allowed to leave activity "A" with out concequences, incurring a "debt" etc.

The victim then violated the stipulation and the murderer viewed the violation as a violation of his honor. He could well have viewed the Honor violation far more seriously than the details of the stipulation.

Honor could have been working both ways, as the victim's honor may of stated that:

- I promised to assist person "P"- and I will keep that promise.
- "P" brought themselves into "A". I had nothing to do with it.
- I cant just allow "P" to walk away from "A" as he / she owes "X". It's a matter of Honor to me that "X" (or at least a token portion of it) be collected.

 

[tlcya]

NEW: Defense for Sheriff Mickey Stines today filed a motion to dismiss the murder indictment and a request for a bond hearing. Stines is charged with the murder of Judge Kevin Mullins in the judge's chambers.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1930379930962981093

I restrained myself from LOLing this post because this case is not at all funny. Bartley is something else. I give him credit for a creative argument. If, on the off chance, the indictment is dismissed, does that mean prosecutors can take it back to the grand jury or how would that work? Hoping @PrairieWind will comment, curious to get their take on this motion.

 

[PrairieWind]

I restrained myself from LOLing this post because this case is not at all funny. Bartley is something else. I give him credit for a creative argument. If, on the off chance, the indictment is dismissed, does that mean prosecutors can take it back to the grand jury or how would that work? Hoping @PrairieWind will comment, curious to get their take on this motion.

I haven't waded in to this too deep, but I did glance at the motion. I think it is a legit motion. First, I am not a big fan of Grand Juries. I much prefer the process of charging by information and preliminary hearing. I think there are a few weak arguments here but a couple strong ones as well, especially about the GJ asking questions either not receiving answers or getting misleading answers. So, we will see what the court does. The Court COULD dismiss with prejudice, meaning the charges couldn't be refiled (that is what happened in the Commonwealth v. Baker case you see cited in there. Or the court could just instruct the prosecutor to resubmit to a GJ again, or could just deny the motion entirely.