Arguments persist over second mental evaluation of former Letcher Co. sheriff

LETCHER COUNTY, Ky. (WJHL) — Prosecutors for the Commonwealth of Kentucky are continuing to push for a second mental health evaluation of Shawn Mickey Stines, the former Letcher County sheriff accused of killing a judge in his chambers.

Stines has been charged with first-degree murder and murder of a public official after allegedly fatally shooting District Judge Kevin Mullins

inside the Letcher County courthouse on Sept. 19, 2024.

His mental health and an examination into his mental state have been matters contested by both prosecutors and the defense.

In March, the defense told the court that Stines planned to use an insanity defense and utilize expert evidence. His attorneys claimed Stines was experiencing an emotional disturbance leading up to the incident that ended in Mullins’s death.

The Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center (KCPC) conducted a psychological evaluation of Stines and provided copies of the report to the court and parties involved in July. The defense has asked the court to unseal those findings, something prosecutors have opposed.

The Commonwealth filed a notice in early September 2025 stating that it planned to have its own expert examine Stines. On Sept. 3, 2025, Stines’s attorneys filed a response opposing a second evaluation, saying there was no precedent for doing so and that another exam was not necessary.

The defense argued that the KCPC evaluation was conducted to ensure fairness and met the legal requirement. Stines’s attorneys claimed there was no evidence to suggest another evaluation was needed and that the Commonwealth just wanted a second opinion.

On Wednesday, prosecutors filed a response to that argument. The defense had cited Kentucky law, stating that it allowed for “a” mental health examination, not multiple. However, the prosecution wrote in its response that nowhere in the law does it explicitly state that only one examination may be conducted.

The Commonwealth also disagreed with the defense’s interpretation of a previous ruling used in the argument against a second evaluation.

Prosecutors also noted that Kentucky law does not allow statements made by defendants during a mental health examination to be used as evidence in a trial. The examinations and any expert testimony stemming from them may only be used regarding the defendant’s mental condition, prosecutors stated.

The Commonwealth argued that by saying he planned to use an insanity defense, Stines initiated inquiries into his mental health.

“Practically, to exercise the Commonwealth’s right to rebuttal, the Commonwealth must be provided with the opportunity to present expert testimony about the Defendant’s mental health,” prosecutors wrote. ” If the Defendant intends to use the evaluator from KCPC as a defense expert, that same witness cannot also serve as the Commonwealth’s expert. Thus, the Commonwealth should be entitled to seek its own expert.”

Attorneys on both sides of the case have filed numerous documents in September 2025, which have spawned ongoing arguments about the trial’s venue, bond for Stines, and claims that the case ought to be dismissed due to misconduct at grand jury proceedings.