I found a link about the motion for the recusal of the judge. It seems quite complicated but it seems to make sense he should recuse himself. IMO they need an out of county judge.
Motion filed calling for recusal of presiding judge in Stines case - Harlan Enterprise
Motion filed calling for recusal of presiding judge in Stines case
Published 11:36 pm Tuesday, December 30, 2025
By John Henson
Photo By Timothy D. Easley/Associated Press
Former Letcher County Sheriff Shawn "Mickey" Stines (right) is pictured talking to his defense attorney Jeremy Bartley during a past preliminary hearing. Stines was arrested and charged with murder after Letcher County courthouse surveillance video captured Kevin Mullins, the former Letcher County District Judge, being gunned down. By Jennifer McDaniels Harlan Enterprise
The murder case of former Letcher County Sheriff Shawn Mickey Stines is becoming more intriguing with the newest motion filed by his defense team. Stines’ counsel filed a motion Tuesday in Letcher Circuit Court asking for the removal of the special judge in the case, Christopher Cohron. The motion states that Cohron’s impartiality may be affected by his previous acquaintance with the late Letcher County District Judge Kevin Mullins, who was gunned down in his office on Sept. 19, 2024, with the killing captured on courthouse surveillance video.
The Stines-Mullins murder case has captured national attention because of its shocking brutality and also because of much hype and speculation revolving around the case involving the former colleagues and friends. Before elected as sheriff, Stines had even served under Mullins as bailiff. The murder saga has been playing out in Letcher County, next door to Harlan County, and Tuesday’s most recent court action asking for the presiding judge to be recused has raised the case’s intensity meter.
Adding to the intrigue is how tight lipped everyone involved in the case has been and that a motive for the murder still has not been revealed. What has been revealed is a video.
An investigator for attorney Jeremy Bartley, Stine’s defense legal representative, discovered a video of Cohron seated with Mullins at a Kentucky Judicial Commission meeting on mental health seven days before the shooting.
According to the motion for recusal by the defense, Cohron and Mullins are pictured “inches apart for approximately two hours” at the meeting. The defense investigator relayed that Mullins’ widow was also in attendance at the meeting and shown on the video. The motion details that during the video, Mullins reported on his involvement with legislative efforts as well as the women’s Dignity Bills, which are pieces of legislation specifically tailored toward improving conditions for incarcerated women. The video also shows Mullins highlighting his most recent drug recovery events and expungement efforts in Whitesburg.
When Mullins is shown discussing upcoming events, Cohron appears to nod in approval. “Had this video been taken even months prior, then appearance would not be so concerning,” a portion of the filed motion reads. “However, this video creates an impression to the public that there is a bias in favor of his colleague seated next to him. As noted in a recent order from the court, videos create a strong presumption that is extremely difficult to rebut.”
Because of the video that surfaced, Stines’s defense team is asking for Cohron to be recused based on the grounds that “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
According to KRS 26A, judges must disqualify themselves in any proceeding where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts.”
“The goal of these recusal provisions is to avoid even the appearance of partiality so as to promote public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process,” the motion reads. “…The presiding judge (Cohron) did not disclose this fact in the parties, despite the close connection in time to the events leading to an appearance of impropriety.”
Defense counsel made it evident in the motion that they planned to present evidence that shows how Cohron’s connection to Mullins is a conflict. “The fact that these two men served on this very worthwhile committee is not enough to draw an objectively reasonable influence of impartiality,” the motion reads. “However, there will be proffered evidence that contrasts with the presentation seen on the video.” The motion also made mention of Stines’s mental health report being blocked by Cohron as evidence in the bond hearing.
Stines’s defense team argued that there was no legal basis to disallow the report. The motion asserts that the entire murder case hinges on mental health with the defense centering on “what Mr. Stines believed was afoot” and the secondary defense, which is emotional disturbance, being judged solely from Stines’ belief “about the planned actions of the deceased during the same time frame.”
Stines’ defense team stated they did not take a motion for recusal lightly, but they maintain that due diligence must be administered to ensure a fair trial. “The undersigned has known the presiding judge as a former prosecutor and as a judge and does not seek his recusal lightly,” the motion reads. “However, the eyes of the world have been upon this litigation. The visual optics in this case must demonstrate impartiality.” A status hearing in the Stines murder case was abruptly adjourned earlier in December when Cohron announced from the bench that an issue had been raised that needed to be addressed before proceedings could continue.
Read more at:
Motion filed calling for recusal of presiding judge in Stines case - Harlan Enterprise
www.themountaineagle.com
