Shawn ‘Mickey’ Stines, a former Kentucky sheriff, and Letcher County District Judge Kevin Mullins were close friends—until a shocking incident erupted in the judge’s courthouse chambers. Now, the legal battle surrounding Mullins’ death is taking an extraordinary turn as Stines’ defense team mounts a last-ditch effort to have the case thrown out.

According to the Daily Mail, Stines’ attorneys have accused the prosecution of misconduct, arguing that alleged irregularities before the grand jury should invalidate the indictment. Prosecutors, meanwhile, maintain that video evidence shows Stines shooting Mullins, but the defense insists the grand jury process was tainted.

The courtroom drama in Whitesburg, Kentucky, has exposed not only the violent end of a public official but also disturbing allegations of corruption and abuse of power in the county’s justice system.

Grand jury secrecy challenged

Stines’ defense team filed a motion on Wednesday targeting the very foundation of the murder indictment. They allege that prosecutors had a private, undocumented meeting with the grand jury prior to the indictment—an act, they argue, that tainted the jury’s impartiality. In addition, the defense claims the grand jury requested key case records that prosecutors never provided.

These two alleged breaches, according to Stines’ attorneys, could have introduced bias and prevented the grand jury from making a fully informed decision. “They are requesting a hearing to prove the grand jury bias, and are asking for the judge to throw out the indictment ‘with prejudice,’ meaning Stines couldn’t be tried again,” the Daily Mail reports.

Despite prosecutors presenting courtroom video said to show Stines shooting Mullins, the defense argues that the alleged procedural misconduct is serious enough to dismiss all charges. They insist that the integrity of the indictment process is at stake.

Motives, mental health, and scandal

While police have declined to offer a clear motive, Stines’ attorneys suggest the shooting was driven by fear for his family’s safety following his deposition in a separate sex-for-favors scandal involving a former deputy. Attorneys say Stines was emotionally destabilized after testifying about Deputy Ben Fields, who was accused of coercing sex from inmates in Judge Mullins’ chambers.

Stines’ legal team had previously indicated they would pursue an insanity defense, citing his mental state at the time of the shooting. Defense attorney Jeremy Bartley told NewsNation he was preparing to argue that “extreme emotional distress led Stines to carry out the shooting.” Bartley connected Stines’ actions to his recent testimony and the fear that retaliation could target his wife and daughter.

Allegations swirling around Mullins’ own involvement in the ongoing scandal have only deepened the intrigue. One accuser, Sabrina Adkins, told NewsNation that Mullins “does have some videotapes of some stuff in the judge’s chambers… just with girls, sexual and stuff.” Fields, the former deputy, was fired by Stines and later served jail time related to the scandal.

Footage, friendship, and fallout

The shooting, captured on courthouse footage, reportedly shows Stines entering Mullins’ chambers and firing eight bullets as Mullins cowered behind his desk. Prosecutors have argued the act was unprovoked, especially since Stines and Mullins had shared lunch together just hours before at a local restaurant.

Investigators are examining whether a phone call between Stines and his daughter and a possible discovery of her phone number in Mullins’ contacts could have been a catalyst. Stines allegedly tried to call his daughter moments before the shooting and made reference to threats against his family when detained.

The former sheriff’s defense maintains that the killing was not premeditated but rather a result of “the heat of passion” and “extreme emotional disturbance.” Bartley told PEOPLE that “the highest level of culpability should be manslaughter based on the partial defense of extreme emotional disturbance.”

Why This Story Matters

The killing of a sitting judge in his chambers by a trusted friend has eroded public trust and deepened concerns about safety within legal institutions. The case also raises important questions about how mental health, power dynamics, and judicial oversight intersect in small communities. As more facts unfold, the outcome could reshape how similar cases are investigated and prosecuted.

With the case still in limbo, former Sheriff Shawn Stines remains behind bars, facing charges that could result in life imprisonment. Meanwhile, the family of Judge Kevin Mullins awaits justice amid a web of controversial claims, changing legal tactics, and a community still grieving both a lost leader and shattered public trust.

Final Thoughts on a Complex Case

To summarize, Judge Kevin Mullins was shot to death inside his courtroom in September 2024 by former Letcher County Sheriff Shawn Stines, who had dined with him just hours earlier. Stine's legal team now seeks dismissal of the murder indictment, claiming prosecutors mishandled the grand jury process with undocumented meetings and withheld records despite video evidence. The defense, once focused on insanity, has pivoted to argue grand jury bias while broader allegations surrounding the judge and a former deputy complicate the narrative further. No trial date has been set, and the discovery process continues to unfold in one of Kentucky’s most unsettling criminal cases in years.