In a shocking turn of events, the small town of Whitesburg, Kentucky, was rocked by the alleged murder of Judge Kevin Mullins by former Sheriff Shawn “Mickey” Stines on September 19, 2024. Surveillance footage obtained by Fox News Digital sheds light on the moments leading up to the incident, revealing that Stines and Mullins, who had been acquaintances for years, spent a seemingly normal day together. They had lunch with colleagues and later engaged in a private conversation in Mullins’ chambers, where unsettling body language and interactions hint at underlying tensions.
The footage captures a cordial atmosphere among a group of individuals before Stines and Mullins secluded themselves in the judge’s office. Expert Susan Constantine analyzed the footage, noting Stines’ anxious demeanor as he paced and toyed with his hands while Mullins appeared relaxed and unaware of the brewing conflict. The judge’s lack of concern, she argued, may have fueled Stines’ anger, ultimately leading to catastrophic consequences. The privacy of their conversation escalated as Stines allegedly locked the door, setting the stage for a confrontation that would leave the community in disbelief.
At the heart of this tragedy is a mystery surrounding a phone exchange between Stines and Mullins shortly before the shooting. As Stines’ attorney, Jeremy Bartley, clarified in an interview, the call was part of a frantic attempt by Stines to reach out to his daughter, and it had nothing to do with any relationship between the judge and Stines’ family. Instead, Bartley indicates that both men were embroiled in a complex web of personal and professional stressors resulting from a civil lawsuit involving Stines, Mullins, and serious allegations against a former deputy sheriff.
Leading up to the incident, Judge Mullins was grappling with paranoia from the civil lawsuit filed against him, which presented a slew of disturbing allegations. Sabrina Adkins accused former Deputy Ben Fields of sexual misconduct that took place within the judge’s chambers. The civil suit not only led to heightened scrutiny over dealings in the courthouse but also positioned both Stines and Mullins precariously in the public eye, as they were named in depositions surrounding the scandal. This mounting pressure seemingly affected their mental states and interpersonal interactions.
Compounding the tension was the fraught nature of Stines’ relationship with Mullins. Although they had known each other for years, Stines’ representation pointed out that their interactions were primarily professional, lacking the depth of friendship sometimes assumed by the public. Barley emphasized that Stines felt immense pressure while navigating the civil suit, fearing for his family’s safety and being coerced into withholding information during his deposition. These factors contributed to what Bartley claims was a boiling point for Stines on the day of the shooting.
With Stines charged with first-degree murder, his legal team is preparing a defense arguing that the act was not premeditated but rather a result of extreme emotional distress. Bartley plans to invoke an insanity defense, citing the overwhelming circumstances leading up to the tragic event. Prosecutors, however, remain steadfast in their pursuit of justice for Mullins, while the community watches closely, grappling with the fallout of a senseless act that claimed the life of a public servant.
