A flurry of developments is unfolding in the legal proceedings of Kentucky vs. Shawn “Mickey” Stines, the ex-sheriff of Letcher County, who is accused of shooting a district judge on September 19, 2024. The incident allegedly took place in the judge’s chambers.

Stines faces charges of first-degree murder along with the murder of a public official for the death of District Judge Kevin Mullins. He has declared a plea of not guilty to these allegations.

Recently, several legal documents were submitted to the Letcher County Circuit Court. Among them was a response from Stines’ legal team to the prosecution’s request to move the trial to a different location. Stines’ defense is against the relocation, arguing that the trial should remain in Letcher County for various reasons.

Both sides also filed notices, responses and briefs pertaining to a number of requests in the case.

Mental Health Evaluation

Back in March, Stines’ lawyers announced intentions to use an insanity defense, planning to present an expert analysis concerning Stines’ mental condition at the time of the judge’s death.

His defense has repeatedly claimed Stines was experiencing an emotional disturbance leading up to and during the alleged murder.

A psychological assessment of Stines was performed by the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center (KCPC), and in July 2025, the results were distributed to the court and relevant parties.

Recently, the defense requested to make the psychological evaluation public, but on Tuesday, the Commonwealth filed an argument in opposition to the request for unsealing the document.

The defense informed the court in its motion to unseal that it plans to use the findings in the evaluation as part of the motion to dismiss the case altogether and to grant Stines bond.

Stines’ attorneys claimed there is nothing in state law that prevents the report from being unsealed and Kentucky’s constitution grants the right to present a defense. By keeping the evaluation sealed, Stines’ attorneys stated he was being deprived of a complete defense that would be considered unconstitutional.

Prosecutors argued that the evaluation contains sensitive information, and the information contained in it is not relevant to the defense’s motions for the dismissal of the case or the motion to grant Stines bond.

“The court has received a copy of the psychological evaluation for review and potential consideration when making determinations of the motions pending before the Court, there is simply no reason for the psychological evaluation to be released,” prosecutors argued in their response.

The Commonwealth also warned the court that unsealing the mental health evaluation could make procuring a fair and unbiased jury even more difficult.

“Should the Court unseal the psychological evaluation of the Defendant, that evaluation would be subject to the same widespread dissemination, further compromising the ability to seat a fair and impartial jury,” the response reads.

Criminal Responsibility Examination

In a brief notice, the Commonwealth informed the court that it intends to independently examine Stines regarding criminal responsibility.

Prosecutors stated Stines intends “to introduce expert evidence of criminal responsibility under RCr 8.07(1) and RCr 8.07(2) as to the issues of guilt and punishment.”

The Commonwealth plans to examine Stines with its own private expert in order to address the insanity defense and the claims that Stines suffers or has suffered from a mental health disease or defect that would impact issues of guilt and punishment.

Granting Stines Bond

Since his arrest, Stines has been denied bond.

On Sept. 2, 2025, his attorneys submitted a brief, urging the court to set an evidentiary bond hearing and potentially set a reasonable bail.

Stines’ defense noted that despite repeated attempts and arguments, the former sheriff has never had a set bond.

Counsel for Stines again cited the Kentucky constitution and state law while arguing he was entitled to it. According to Kentucky law, a person shall be granted bail except in capital cases where proof exists or the presumption is great that the defendant is guilty.

His attorneys stated the court must present findings after an inquiry and rule that all conditions are met in order to deny Stines bond, which constitutes an evidentiary hearing.

“The Commonwealth must show that the evidence of guilt is so compelling that it virtually ensures conviction,” the brief reads.

The defense cited a number of previous court rulings, stating they backed the claim that Stines was entitled to the hearing before bond was denied further.

Dismissal of the Case

Counsel for Stines also filed a brief in support of its motion to dismiss the case. In August, the defense filed the motion for dismissal, and the Sept. 2 brief stated that it was due to “prosecutorial misconduct at the grand jury proceedings.”

Stines’ attorneys claim prosecutors violated his constitutional rights and “elicited false and misleading testimony” that led to prejudice against him and “tainted the grand jury proceedings.”

Central to the defense’s claims are statements made by Kentucky State Police Detective Clayton Stamper during the grand jury proceedings that led to Stines’ indictments.

The defense argued that Stamper made false and intentionally misleading statements and was prejudiced toward Stines.

“In the case at bar, the Commonwealth elicited, and Detective Clayton Stamper testified to, multiple false statements before the Letcher County Grand Jury,” the brief reads. “This testimony prejudiced Mr. Stines and resulted in an indictment.”

According to the defense, Stamper told the grand jury that an investigation showed Stines was “in his sane mind.” Stines’ attorneys argued there was overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise.

The second Stamper statement called into question by the defense was centered around a question from the grand jury about whether Mullins had “any relation” to the Ben Fields civil case.

The Ben Fields case involves a former Letcher County deputy who was sent to prison for rape and sodomy of a female inmate in 2022. A lawsuit was filed against Fields in 2022, and Stines fired him. A woman central to the lawsuit allegedly told investigators that she had seen video of Mullins engaged in sexual acts in his chambers.

Stines’ defense claims that during the grand jury proceedings, Stamper was asked if Mullins had any relation to the Fields case. A prosecutor interjected, the brief claims, and instead asked Stamper, “to your knowledge was Judge Mullins involved?”

Stamper responded with “to my knowledge, no involvement,” the brief states.

The defense argued that the Kentucky State Police investigation in the Fields case made it clear that sexual acts occurred in Mullins’ chambers and that Mullins was allegedly involved.

The defense stated that almost half of the grand jury hearing was centered around issues stemming from Stamper’s statements.

“The Defendant is entitled to a dismissal of the indictment based upon the evidence provided from the Commonwealth’s investigation as briefly stated herein,” the brief reads.