Former prosecutors are challenging the insanity defense that defense attorney Jeremy Bartley plans for ex-Kentucky Sheriff Shawn ‘Mickey’ Stines, who is accused of killing Judge Kevin Mullins. Legal analysts Phil Holloway and Michael Wynne argue that Stines’ paranoia does not equate to insanity, as he exhibited a clear understanding of right and wrong during the events leading up to the murder.
Stines is accused of shooting and killing District Judge Kevin Mullins in the judge’s chambers inside the Letcher County Courthouse on September 19, 2024. Surveillance videos captured the incident, and the legal team defending Stines is attempting to use a mental health defense. However, legal experts such as Holloway emphasize that such defenses are rare and ineffective in most states, including Kentucky, if the accused knew right from wrong at the time of the crime.
According to Holloway, the sheriff’s video footage from his post-shooting interview with law enforcement indicates that he was concerned about being harmed by police or other parties. This, he argues, shows that Stines understood the wrongfulness of his actions. Similarly, Wynne, a former prosecutor, points out that the footage from Mullins’ chambers suggests Stines made deliberate decisions, further undermining the insanity defense.
Stines’ attorney, Jeremy Bartley, has tied the defense to sexual abuse allegations that plagued Letcher County officials, including his former deputy, Ben Shields. Despite the legal arguments against the insanity claim, Bartley has not commented further on this case. The legal battle over the insanity defense is expected to play a significant role in the trial, as experts predict a likely guilty verdict, with the insanity defense being viewed as a frivolous attempt to delay justice.