Kentucky sheriff who was accused of fatally shooting judge in his chambers indicted for murder
A Kentucky sheriff who was accused of fatally shooting a district judge in his chambers two months ago was indicted for murder Thursday.
Prosecuting attorney Jackie Steele said after a grand jury returned the indictment that he couldn't comment on an alleged motive, although police previously said Shawn “Mickey” Stines — then-sheriff of Letcher County — and Judge Kevin Mullins had argued just before the Sept. 19 shooting, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported.
'Everything seemed fine between them. There was no clue that anything was wrong at all. You wouldn't have guessed there was the slightest problem.'
Judge Julia H. Adams received the indictment and set Stines’ arraignment for next Monday, the paper said.
Stines turned himself in after the shooting and was charged with first-degree murder, the New York Times reported, citing police. He retired as sheriff less than two weeks after the shooting.
Stines — who's accused of shooting Mullins eight times — pleaded not guilty to the murder charge.
The shooting was captured on surveillance video. You can view the surveillance clip here; it omits the actual shots being fired, and it's included in a larger video report about the shooting. Spectators cried out in the Morgan County courtroom as the video played during a hearing last month, WDKY-TV reported.
Kentucky State Police Detective Clayton Stamper testified that the full video of the shooting shows Stines using his own phone to make multiple calls, then using the judge’s phone to make a call, the Louisville Courier Journal reported, adding that the shooting followed.
Stamper testified that the calls were to Stines’ daughter, the Courier Journal noted, and he said the phone number of Stines' daughter had been saved in the judge's phone and was called before the shooting. Stamper also said Stines stood up from his chair in the judge’s office after looking at Mullins’ phone and shot him seconds later, the Herald-Leader said.
The shooting is particularly curious since Stines and Mullins reportedly had been decades-long friends.
What's more, the pair went to lunch at the Streetside Grill & Bar on Main Street just hours before the shooting, the Daily Mail reported. A restaurant employee told the outlet that Stines and Mullins ordered their usual lunch — both having chicken wings with salad.
"Everything seemed fine between them. There was no clue that anything was wrong at all," an employee said. "You wouldn't have guessed there was the slightest problem."
A woman who reportedly works for the Letcher County Sheriff’s Office also gave her phone to investigators for examination, WDKY said, adding that Stamper testified that she was one of Stines’ employees and believed she’d received text messages from Stines that noted what occurred at lunch and led to the shooting.
Under cross-examination, Stamper said that when Stines "was taken into custody, I was told by one of the other officers that were there that he made the comment, ‘They’re trying to kidnap my wife and kid,'" WDKY added.
More from the Herald-Leader:
The crime could be eligible for the death penalty if Stines is convicted because Mullins was a public official. Steele, who is prosecuting the case with Attorney General Russell Coleman’s office, said there had been no decision yet on whether to seek the death penalty against Stines if he is convicted. However, Stines’ attorney, Jeremy Bartley, has said that he does not think the murder is the appropriate charge in the case.
Bartley said at the Oct. 1 hearing that the evidence offered there pointed to the shooting as being an act of “extreme emotional disturbance” in reaction to something Stines had seen on Mullins’ phone.
There was no information at the hearing about what was on the phone. If a jury decided Stines acted out of extreme emotional disturbance, he couldn’t be convicted of murder, but rather first-degree manslaughter or a lesser crime. The death penalty would not be an option in that case.
You can view a video report here about Thursday's murder indictment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
A new grand jury report contains damning information about how the 'expert' class did not, in fact, 'follow the science' on Covid.
HHS lost contact with 85,000 minors over two years despite spending $13 billion to sponsor their stays in the country.
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com
Will THIS little-known legal defense strategy RESCUE Trump?
As his four criminal cases get closer to trial, former President Donald Trump could likely use some help.
And Mark Levin claims a certain legal defense strategy could be just what rescues him.
This legal defense strategy is called an anti-suit injunction, which could cease litigation being brought in D.C.
According to Levin, an anti-suit injunction is “when a judge issues an order telling the prosecution or another party, the plaintiff, to cease from prosecuting their case until the case in her courtroom is completed. After that, they can pursue their case.”
In this instance, it’s crucially important for several reasons.
The first reason is because the first federal indictments were brought related to the documents case.
“Now the documents case was brought before the wrong grand jury, in the wrong venue in Washington D.C. Why? Because Jack Smith is a sleazeball. Because Merrick Garland is a sleazeball,” Levin explains.
“The special counsel wanted an indictment, and he might not have gotten one in Florida, so he used the D.C. grand jury to do just that,” because otherwise “Trump and the other defendants will have a very strong case of prosecutorial misconduct here and this violates the Department of Justice rules — which it does.”
Levin believes that because of this, Trump’s lawyers should “be bringing a motion over jury misconduct.”
Levin’s second reason applies to what’s happening in Georgia, which is “very critical as well.”
“You have due process procedures in Georgia that mimic what’s in the federal Constitution. But the federal Constitution also applies to what happened in Georgia,” Levin explains.
“It was very weird, wasn’t it? We wake up, we’re told that the president is going to be facing grand jury, possible indictments,” he continues, adding that something really weird happened that morning.
“The indictment with all the charges, 98 pages, had already been posted on the official government website of the clerk of the court.”
That’s when Fani Willis “desperately” rushed through the rest of the process, before indicting him late at night.
“She violated the due process rights of 19 individuals,” which included the former president, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, and Jenna Ellis.
“Why? Because the grand jury indicted those people based exactly on what was posted that morning. So, the question is, what did that prosecutor tell that grand jury?” Levin asks.
Want more from Mark Levin?
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.