A former Kentucky sheriff accused of gunning down a sitting judge inside his courthouse chambers has admitted to pulling the trigger, according to newly filed court documents, while his defense moves to lean heavily on an insanity argument as the case heads towards trial.
Shawn “Mickey” Stines, who resigned as Letcher County sheriff after the September 2024 killing, admitted in the filing that he shot District Judge Kevin Mullins during a confrontation in the Whitesburg courthouse, according to court documents obtained by the Lexington Herald-Leader.
The video, with no audio, showed a man identified by police as Stines pulling out a gun and shooting at the judge, who was seated at his desk. The man walked around the desk, pointed the gun at the judge and repeatedly shot him. Stines has been charged with first-degree murder and murder of a public official.
The admission comes as the former sheriff’s attorneys have worked to establish that Stines was suffering from “extreme emotional disturbance” prior to the shooting, suggesting his legal team is preparing a broad insanity defense, the outlet reported.
KENTUCKY JUDGE KILLED IN CHAMBERS ACCUSED OF TRADING SEXUAL FAVORS FOR INFLUENCE AT WILD PARTIES
In a document written a few days after the shooting, a social worker who met with Stines in jail said he had remained in “an active state of psychosis” and didn’t appear to understand the criminal charge against him. Stines had “episodes of combativeness which has required pepper spray,” the Associated Press reported.
In a deposition Stines gave investigators in the days leading up to the shooting, he claimed to have been suffering from dizziness, headaches, sweating and memory loss brought on by California encephalitis, a neurological disease resulting from bug bites, the Herald-Leader reported.
Prosecutors have not commented on the latest filings. Stines’ legal team has argued that a portion of his mental evaluation should remain sealed, a position that the judge recently upheld.
Stines resigned as sheriff days after the shooting and is being held without bond in eastern Kentucky.
Under Kentucky law, proof of mental incapacitation or extreme emotional distress could take the death penalty off the table in Stines’ case, the Herald-Leader reported. However, a defendant’s standards of intent reportedly differ in civil cases, with Mullins’ widow filing a wrongful death lawsuit against Stines and three other Letcher County Sheriff’s Office employees in September.
Kimberly Mullins and the couple’s two children are reportedly accusing Stines of assault and battery, while alleging that three other sheriff’s employees did not warn or protect the judge from Stines, who was showing signs of being anxious, violently paranoid and psychotic.
On Nov. 12, Stines admitted to shooting Mullins in his answer to the civil lawsuit, adding that he was “exhibiting paranoid and psychotic conduct,” according to the Herald-Leader.
VICTIMS OUTRAGED AFTER OHIO JUDGE RELEASES MAN CHARGED IN MULTIPLE CLEVELAND ASSAULTS
Stines’ attorneys reportedly moved to dismiss the case under the sovereign immunity doctrine, which shields government officials from civil liability claims while acting in their official capacity. They also asked a judge to dismiss the negligence claims against him, citing the accusation must show proof of intent.
“As Sheriff, he was a county employee and, therefore, is entitled to the same sovereign immunity granted to the County itself,” his attorneys wrote, according to the Herald-Leader. “Based on this, the official capacity claims against Shawn Stines must be dismissed.”
Additionally, Stines’ attorneys reportedly detailed a possible defense they could use to portray their client’s state of mind during the alleged killing, insisting that he “had no control,” and was suffering from “pre-existing conditions.”
Stines’ attorneys did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
Last week, a judge reportedly denied two motions to dismiss the criminal charges against Stines, with his attorneys saying prosecutors never informed the grand jury of their client’s mental state when the crime was committed and that the proceeding was intentionally not recorded.
