Judge denies motion seeking his recusal in former KY sheriff murder trial
The judge presiding over the trial for the former Letcher County sheriff accused of shooting and killing another judge has denied a motion that sought his recusal.
Former sheriff Shawn “Mickey” Stines faces charges of first-degree murder and murder of a public official in the death of district judge Kevin Mullins in September 2024.
Stines’ attorney
filed a motion in December 2025, requesting that Judge Christopher Cohron recuse himself from the case.
The motion was sent to the Supreme Court of Kentucky, which
sent the matter back to the Letcher County Circuit Court in January 2026 for a decision. The Supreme Court of Kentucky stated that if Cohron recused himself, the matter was concluded, but if he denied the order, Stines’ attorneys could seek a further review.
On Friday, Cohron denied the motion, stating he had no bias in the case and that there were no facts that would call that into question.
“As I have no personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, and there are no surrounding facts and circumstances upon which an objective observer might reasonably question my impartiality, the Motion is DENIED,” Cohron wrote.
Stines’ attorneys had pointed to a video from a week before Mullins died, which showed Cohron and Mullins seated near one another during a Kentucky Judicial Commission on Mental Health. The motion sought Cohron’s recusal on the basis that he had disclosed the fact that he and Mullins had been in such proximity for hours the week before Mullins’ death.
In his order denying the motion, Cohron acknowledged that he and Mullins both served on the commission, and he noted that the video of the Sept. 12, 2024, meeting is available for viewing online. Cohron wrote that he took a seat beside Mullins, with an empty chair between them. Cohron also stated that he did not at points when Mullins delivered a report.
However, according to Cohron, the motion seeking his recusal “does not meet the test of demonstrating facts which would cause a reasonable observer to question my impartiality.”
Cohron claimed that while he and Mullins could be seen as colleagues on a purely professional level, that would not interfere with his duty to uphold the law.
“Judges throughout the Commonwealth know and are known by many people, some of whom may eventually be the victims of crime,” Cohron wrote. “The fact that a judge knows a crime victim through professional practices and organizations does not, by itself, create the appearance of partiality. See Dunlap, 435 S.W.3d 537. A judge is not required to become isolated from society, other judges, or forego participation in professional activities.”
Cohron reiterated that he had no relationship with Mullins that would call his impartiality into question.
“The fact that there was no personal relationship at all or any professional relationship between Judge Mullins and myself, other than us both being members of the KJCMH, would assure a reasonable observer that I would not have a bias in favor of Judge Mullins.”
Cohron also addressed claims in the motion that he had shot down the defense’s attempts to unseal a mental health evaluation as a result of bias. Cohron wrote that his interpretation of the law led him to decide to keep the evaluation sealed, not out of bias, which he stated the defense had failed to prove.
www.themountaineagle.com
