Kentucky - Judge killed, sheriff arrested in Letcher County courthouse shooting - Sep. 19, 2024 # 3

[Lorenathered]

If this case were in Florida where its aggressive public disclosure laws would invade her privacy, there might be issues. In this case, her phone might not be helpful, but if this case goes to trial, lack of examination could be an issue regarding reasonable doubt.

Respectfully snipped and bolded by me.....how in the world would anything that may or may not be on her phone lead anyone to reasonable doubt? It is on tape. He shot an unarmed man in cold blood period.

This is just my opinion of course but no amount of trying to vilify the victim or reasoning Stines could try and give will ever justify what he very clearly did on tape.

 

[PrairieWind]

It may be that the police just really are not interested in her phone. They have the video of the shooting, they have the judge's phone and can look at phone records, so they probably know full well most of the "why." They don't need the daughter's phone. Anything on there may be of more use to the defense, and they probably have access to that phone already.

 

[Ontario Mom]

It may just be a gut feeling, but I suspect LE knows more about the motive in this case than they have publicly disclosed.

RSBM

I suspect they knew almost immediately, from Stines himself.

 

[tlcya]

@PrairieWind said: Search warrant or subpoena.

my question is: based upon what probable cause?

 

[PrairieWind]

@PrairieWind said: Search warrant or subpoena.

my question is: based upon what probable cause?

I guess that depends a bit upon what Stines has told them. We know a crime was committed and a call was made to her phone just before. If there is some allegation that there were some criminal activity going on other than the killing, ie something involving the judge and stines, then there could reason to believe evidence of those crimes could be on the girl's phone, since it seems that the call to her phone was related to the shooting. I think that would satisfy most judges. But without knowing what Stines has told them, it is hard to say.

 

[Seattle1]

It may be that the police just really are not interested in her phone. They have the video of the shooting, they have the judge's phone and can look at phone records, so they probably know full well most of the "why." They don't need the daughter's phone. Anything on there may be of more use to the defense, and they probably have access to that phone already.

^^bbm

IMO, Investigator Stamper said as much during questioning by Stines defense attorney-- that they already had Mullins phone at the forensic lab and by his call history, they could determine any calls coming to/ from the daughters phone (and why they didn't also need her phone). This response prompted the question whether or not they intended to search any phone apps used by the parties -- including the daughter, where calls using apps do not necessarily appear in the call history. Please see transcript of the prelim hearing previously linked.

 

[tlcya]

I guess that depends a bit upon what Stines has told them. We know a crime was committed and a call was made to her phone just before. If there is some allegation that there were some criminal activity going on other than the killing, ie something involving the judge and stines, then there could reason to believe evidence of those crimes could be on the girl's phone, since it seems that the call to her phone was related to the shooting. I think that would satisfy most judges. But without knowing what Stines has told them, it is hard to say.

thanks, The LEO who was questioned on the stand at Stines hearing on whether to hold the case over for the grand jury was asked by the attorney acting for Stines if LE had the daughter's phone. He responded with no. People seemed shocked at that response. My point was, what probable cause would LE have even used to gain a warrant? At that point, early on, I just don't think LE COULD have taken her phone.

Appreciate your response.

 

[PrairieWind]

thanks, The LEO who was questioned on the stand at Stines hearing on whether to hold the case over for the grand jury was asked by the attorney acting for Stines if LE had the daughter's phone. He responded with no. People seemed shocked at that response. My point was, what probable cause would LE have even used to gain a warrant? At that point, early on, I just don't think LE COULD have taken her phone.

Appreciate your response.

It is just hard to say. I think that if LE thought there was something really important on her phone, they probably could have gotten a warrant. But they would have had to explain why they think something was there, and that is the part we just don't know. it just seems to me that they had the Judge's phone and after talking to the girl, they felt they didn't need a warrant.
It is a bit interesting the defense asked the question during the hearing. Either the daughter isn't talking to the Defense , which is interesting, or she is and the Defense attorney knew the answer already, but just wanted that info to come out. Since she was sitting right behind her father, I don't think it was the former.

 

[CrimeJunkie82]

I haven't been on in awhile. Can someone fill me in on what's going on with the phone? He called his daughter before he shot the judge?

 

[CrimeJunkie82]

Agreed- we know that the daughter talked with law enforcement about her conversations with the judge- so there is known contact and honestly if I didn’t easily see the number I was looking for in “recents” not sure I’d go through someone’s contacts to search for a number, I’d just key it in- for all we k ow it was in the judges phone under the correct name- moo

I haven't been on in awhile. The daughter talked to the judge?

 

[CrimeJunkie82]

I just went and read an article about this. Apparently the sheriff and the judge were already being investigated because a deputy had been accused of rape for taking off an ankle monitor in exchange for sex which took place in the judges chambers. That deputy was later found guilty and charged. There is definetly alot more going on in that entire police department than anyone knows,

 

[Ontario Mom]

It is just hard to say. I think that if LE thought there was something really important on her phone, they probably could have gotten a warrant. But they would have had to explain why they think something was there, and that is the part we just don't know. it just seems to me that they had the Judge's phone and after talking to the girl, they felt they didn't need a warrant.
It is a bit interesting the defense asked the question during the hearing. Either the daughter isn't talking to the Defense , which is interesting, or she is and the Defense attorney knew the answer already, but just wanted that info to come out. Since she was sitting right behind her father, I don't think it was the former.

I had the same impression. Especially when he followed up that line of questioning (starting at 22 minutes in) with asking the detective if he knew if the judge had apps on his phone that would stand "outside" (the way he put it) phone records.

The detective deflects and says he hasn't received the records yet (of the judge's phone) and doesn't know what's on the phone. Defense: "fair enough, but did you look at the phone, did it appear there were apps on it?" Detective responds saying he's not qualified to look through cell phones & the defense comes back again about him being familiar with cell phones then... objection & the questioning is re-directed and he makes the point that even though the cell phone records may be "mutual" between the judge's phone and Stines' daughter's phone, asks if he (the detective) agrees there may be other information obtained from those apps, outside of cell phone content.

Still sort of going back and forth, the detective offers up that yes, there would be search warrants for those apps as well.

That was all intentional. He was going somewhere very specific with that, on purpose.

 

[tlcya]

It is just hard to say. I think that if LE thought there was something really important on her phone, they probably could have gotten a warrant. But they would have had to explain why they think something was there, and that is the part we just don't know. it just seems to me that they had the Judge's phone and after talking to the girl, they felt they didn't need a warrant.
It is a bit interesting the defense asked the question during the hearing. Either the daughter isn't talking to the Defense , which is interesting, or she is and the Defense attorney knew the answer already, but just wanted that info to come out. Since she was sitting right behind her father, I don't think it was the former.

my impression based off the public defender's questions that day was that he himself didn't really know what prompted this shooting that day when asking the questions. I suspected that Stines rather fatalistically was resigned to his fate and that whatever prompted him to shoot Mullins wasn't something he wanted to share with LE or anyone else. But I could be wrong.

I would assume Stines attorney has much more information about his client's motivations at this time.

 

[Luna20]

I just went and read an article about this. Apparently the sheriff and the judge were already being investigated because a deputy had been accused of rape for taking off an ankle monitor in exchange for sex which took place in the judges chambers. That deputy was later found guilty and charged. There is definetly alot more going on in that entire police department than anyone knows,

Can you please link the article?

 

[tlcya]

I just went and read an article about this. Apparently the sheriff and the judge were already being investigated because a deputy had been accused of rape for taking off an ankle monitor in exchange for sex which took place in the judges chambers. That deputy was later found guilty and charged. There is definetly alot more going on in that entire police department than anyone knows,

crazy case huh? But no, neither the judge nor the sheriff were under any criminal investigation that the public knows of. The sheriff was named as a defendant in a civil case based on alleged failure to control and train one of his deputies. That is the extent of it.

ETA the deputy involved in that case though, he was criminally charged and found guilty.

 

[PrairieWind]

It could be that the attorney, in asking about the daughter's phone at the hearing, was almost wanting people to know "there is nothing of interest on the daughter's phone, and we know this because the police aren't seizing it." And then goes on almost telling LE where they DO need to be looking for info on the Judge's phone. Stines could well have told the attorney to throw those questions in for that purpose. I would assume LE would be looking for that already, but maybe Stines just wanted to make sure, and wanted the public to know as well.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

I haven't been on in awhile. The daughter talked to the judge?

At the preliminary hearing it was stated that the daughter had been interviewed, told LE about the conversations with the judge and her phone was not searched

 

[tlcya]

and then the Kentucky state police corrected that in print to say the daughter did NOT answer the phone when Stine dialed her number into the judge's phone. They were concerned that the testimony had created a false assumption that the daughter had answered that call jut prior to Stines shooting the judge.

We have no clue if the judge and the daughter had spoken on some previous occasion. But the LEO on the stand that day didn't seem to know much of anything. He wasn't the one who interviewed the daughter or interacted with Stines after the shooting. MOO

 

[Ontario Mom]

It could be that the attorney, in asking about the daughter's phone at the hearing, was almost wanting people to know "there is nothing of interest on the daughter's phone, and we know this because the police aren't seizing it." And then goes on almost telling LE where they DO need to be looking for info on the Judge's phone. Stines could well have told the attorney to throw those questions in for that purpose. I would assume LE would be looking for that already, but maybe Stines just wanted to make sure, and wanted the public to know as well.

Well, if that's what he was going for, it worked.

 

[Ontario Mom]

We have no clue if the judge and the daughter had spoken on some previous occasion. But the LEO on the stand that day didn't seem to know much of anything. He wasn't the one who interviewed the daughter or interacted with Stines after the shooting. MOO

We most certainly do. The detective on the stand explicitly stated that Stines' daughter was interviewed about her conversations with the judge, on her phone. He named who interviewed her, stated that her parent was present, and when asked if her phone was obtained he said no, and added that whatever was on her phone would be on the judge's cell records as well.

She may have not answered immediately before her dad shot the judge, but we know from the detective she did have previous conversations with the judge, on her phone. I've posted the link to the testimony several times.