Kentucky Supreme Court denies Shawn Stines’ motion to remove presiding judge in his shooting case
Shawn Stines files affidavit seeking removal of presiding judge over relationship with alleged victim
UPDATE: April 20 at 3 p.m.
The Kentucky Supreme Court has denied a motion by Shawn Stines to disqualify the special judge presiding over his Letcher County case.
In an order entered on April 18, 2026, the Deputy Chief Justice ruled that Special Judge Christopher Cohron will remain on the case, rejecting arguments that Cohron’s prior proximity to the alleged victim created an appearance of impropriety.
Original Story:
A Letcher County man awaiting trial in a shooting case has filed an affidavit seeking the removal of the presiding judge, claiming the judge had a close professional relationship with the alleged victim.
Shawn Mickey Stines filed the document on March 31 in Letcher Circuit Court, requesting a special judge replace the Honorable Christopher Cohron. Stines claims he cannot receive a fair and impartial trial under Cohron.
The affidavit centers on the relationship between Cohron and the alleged victim, Kevin Mullins. Stines points to a Kentucky Judicial Commission on Mental Health meeting on Sept. 12, 2024, which took place seven days before the shooting.
According to the court documents, a video from the meeting shows Cohron and Mullins sitting inches apart. Stines noted that Mullins’ widow was also in attendance and stated his belief that the two men attended a companion social or dinner event connected to the meeting.
In the video, Mullins discussed his involvement with legislative efforts, recovery events, and professional plans for the District Judge’s College. Stines claims Cohron appeared to nod in approval during the discussion.
Stines stated that Cohron did not disclose this connection to the parties involved in the case, which he argues leads to an appearance of impropriety.
“It is also my belief that evidence presented at trial regarding Mullins will conflict with the Judge’s professional knowledge of Mullins and that the presiding judge will not be impartial as a result,” Stines said.
The trial court previously issued an order on March 6 denying a motion to recuse or disqualify the judge that was filed by Stines’ counsel in Dec. 2025.
