Sheriff Mickey Stines defense wants the indictment tossed alleging investigators who testified withheld reports Stines was mentally unwell before the shooting and after. Colleagues and family had him be seen by a doctor the day before the shooting due to his increasing paranoia
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.
- ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout - NEW STYLES
- Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all)
- PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibis
- Venmo - @prettyliesalibis
- Buy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesr
- Cash App- Prettyliesandalibis
- All links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibis
- Merch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.com
- Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis
- (Weekly lives and private message board)
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What you know, alibyers. Welcome to another episode of Pretty
Lies and Alibis. I'm gg It's Saturday, October eleventh. I
hope you guys are having a good weekend so far.
I wanted to dive into this new motion to dismiss
the indictment against Sheriff Mickey Steins, who was caught on
camera shooting Judge Mullins in his chambers. This is a
(00:20):
very interesting filing to me. I've been curious as to
his state of mind leading up to the shooting, and
we're kind of getting a glimpse of that in this filing,
So let's jump right in. They cite prosecutor misconduct at
the grand jury proceedings as their reason for dismissing disindictment. Specifically,
the Commonwealth violated the defendant's constitutional rights and elicited false
(00:45):
and misleading testimony which prejudiced the defendant and tainted the
grand jury proceedings. The statement bade by Detective Stamper that
the defendant was in his sane mind as false and
intentionally misleading and prejudication to the defendant. An indictment returned
by illegally constituted an unbiased grand jury. If valid on
(01:07):
its face is enough to call for a trial of
charge on the merits. However, dismissal of an indictment by
a trial court is appropriate if it's established that a
violation substantially influenced the grand jury's decision to indict, or
if there's grave doubt the decision to indict was free
from the substantial influence of such violations. And in the
(01:30):
footnotes they are just citing cases that they're referring to.
They go through a couple of cases where the grand
jury indictment was dismissed due to prosecutors in those respective
cases eliciting false testimony. In the case at Bar, the
Commonwealth elicited and Detective Clayton's Stamper testified to multiple false
statements before the grand jury. This testimony prejudiced mister Stein's
(01:55):
and resulted in an indictment. This case was presented to
the grand jury approximately two months after the defendant's arrest
and preliminary hearing. The detective and Attorney General's Office had
ample opportunity to investigate and review evidence, including witness statements,
before presentation to the grand jury. After the Commonwealth concluded
(02:16):
its examination, multiple grand jurors ask very specific questions of
Detective Stamper, the answers to which clearly influenced the juror's
decision to indict. Had the Commonwealth presented truthful and accurate
testimony to the grand jury, the outcome would have likely
been different. On November twenty one, twenty twenty four, Kentucky
(02:37):
State Police Detective Clayton Stamper testify before the Lecher County
grand Jury seeking a murder indictment against Sheriff Mickey Steins.
Detective Stamper, the lead investigator in the case, is charged
with the duty to have knowledge of his agency's investigation,
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Detective Stamper and the
(02:58):
Commonwealth put on testimony that the investigation showed defendant was
in his sane mind. While the Commonwealth argues the defense
is confused about the rules of civil procedure, defendant respectfully disagrees.
Defendant does not submit to this court that the Commonwealth
needed an expert to testify as to the mental health
(03:20):
of the defendant. As stated in the recent status hearing,
the defendant believes it is unwise to even allow the
witness to go down that road, but they are free
to do. So. What the Commonwealth cannot do is mislead
the grand jury. This is exactly what happened as a
result of the reckless provision of information that is objectively untrue.
(03:41):
Defendant will outline its basis for this claim, but seeks
an evidentiary hearing to put on further evidence in support
of its position if necessary. First, Detective Stamper was questioned
about whether there was any type of hallucination, psychosis, depression,
any mental health issues in the documentation from doctor McDougall,
(04:02):
who saw the defendant the day prior to the shooting.
At the urging of his family and co workers, the
Assistant Attorney General then hands Stamper and asked him to
read a snippet of a record from doctor Stein's visit
to a medical provider the day before the shooting. However,
the Commonwealth and its witness do not disclose the same
records from the day before the shooting. His doctor diagnosed
(04:25):
an acute stress reaction In a little section here, it
says a quick Wikipedia glance reveals the following acute stress
reaction or ASR, also known as psychological shock, mental shock,
or simply shock, as well as an acute stress disorder
as a psychological response to a terrifying, traumatic, or surprising experience.
(04:48):
The reactions may include, but are not limited to, intrusive
thoughts or disassociation and reactivity symptoms such as avoidance or
hyper arousal. It may be exhibited for days or weeks
after the traumatic event. If the condition is not correctly addressed,
it may develop into PTSD. Another juror ass quote, So
(05:11):
doctor McDougall said, there's pretty much no mental health issues.
But was there any major physical health issues that he
was struggling with that might have affected his mental health?
End quote. The witness answered, no, not that I'm aware of.
The grand jury asked for medical records. A snippet was
read to them. They were told there was nothing of
(05:32):
note in them. The diagnosis from this visit makes it
evident that this is untrue. As in Baker, the witness
and prosecutor are charged with the knowledge gained in the investigation. Second,
the Commonwealth has represented that the first unrecorded meeting was
for the purpose of obtaining grand jury subpoenas for Appalachia
(05:52):
Regional Hospital records and Letcher County Jail records. However, the
Commonwealth's witness failed to note the mental health evaluations that
were initiated by the government via a visit at the jail.
These examinations were conducted at Kentucky River Community Care on
September twentieth, twenty third, and twenty fourth of twenty twenty four.
(06:13):
Those evaluations included observations of active psychosis. He had been
given Risperdoo and Sarah Quell by the jail prior to
the exams, as noted in the medical record. The same
notes indicated that mister Stein's had been seeing his primary
care physician for stress and anxiety. This is the same
doctor referenced in the grand jury transcript. Follow Up notes
(06:36):
from the mental health evaluator indicate that his condition improved
after the administration of the medications. The Commonwealth has stated
that one of the purposes of the unrecorded grand jury
hearing was to get subpoenis from mental health records and
jail records. In fact, the only evidence given from that
first grand jury meeting was a note saying the grand
(06:56):
jury sought all medical records, including but not limited to,
mental health records and pharmacy records for Sean Steins From
June nineteenth, twenty twenty four to present. We also request
any and all records from the detention center. It appears
clear that the mental health evaluation on September twenty third
and twenty fourth fall within the requested documents. These two
(07:20):
evaluations were done while Stein's was at the Leslie County
Detention Center, Yet the discovery provided detailing the exhibits given
to the grand jury curiously do not include any records
from the jail. They go on to say the Commonwealth
chose to ignore a record's request from the Grand Jury
from mental health and jail records from June twenty twenty
(07:40):
four to present, which was supposed to be the only
purpose of the unrecorded meeting. The Commonwealth then allowed their
witness to state the investigation did not reveal any evidence
of a mental health issue. Despite doctor McDougal noting an
acute stress reaction the day prior to the shooting and
mental health provider's work with the jail describing an active
(08:02):
psychosis and the jail prescribing medications, he failed to comply
or at best, selectively comply with the grand jury's request
for subpoenas. Coupled with the prosecutor allowing the detective to
make such a recklessly false statement falls well within what
Baker describes as misconduct. At the grand jury stage, the
(08:22):
grand jury requested all mental health records from June nineteenth,
twenty twenty four through present. They also requested all the
files from the Leslie County Jail. The jail referred mister
Stein's for the mental health evaluations. The jail administered the
psychological medications in conjunction with the evaluations. The Commonwealth's failure
(08:44):
to provide or mention these records is in direct violation
of the request by the grand jury, and thus is
in direct violation of the Baker mandate that prosecutors maintained
the independence of the grand jury investigation. They go on
to say the Commonwealth Health was not free to cherry
pick what items the grand jury got to hear about.
Given the specific requests, and both requests for mental health
(09:08):
records and jail records which would encompass the detention evaluations
he had, the failure to produce them alone is misleading.
Adding this with allowing the detective to state there was
no evidence of a mental health condition is misconduct. The
evidence of psychosis was within the records The grand jury
sought defendant concedes there was no requirement to put this
(09:31):
in evidence absent the grand jury's request. However, there were
two requests that were blatantly ignored and specific questions that
were answered falsely. The detective and prosecutor and Baker were
obviously underprepared for the grand jury and both were relying
on work done by others. However, the recklessly misleading information
(09:54):
prejudiced the defendant in Baker, and the facts in the
case are significant and more prejudic Additional Additionally, the Kentucky
State Police, under direction of lead investigators Stamper, conducted multiple interviews.
This is what's interesting to me is to hear from
people that knew Sheriff Steins and saw that something wasn't
right leading up to the shooting. Practically all the interviews
(10:18):
call into question the defendant's mental status in the week
preceding the shooting. On September twentieth, twenty twenty four, Kentucky
State Police interviewed attorney Daniel Dotson. Dotson said he had
told defendant to seek a mental health evaluation prior to
the shooting, and the defendant told him he was going
to see his family doctor. Dotson said defendant never threatened
(10:40):
him or Judge Mullins, but that he was so concerned
about Mickey's demeanor that he contacted the Kentucky Bar Association
to determine what action he could take. Dotson told the
Kentucky State Police that he spoke to Kevin Mullins and
told him Mickey was quote losing it and could not
take this kind of pressure. Reference to the civil suit
(11:01):
involving quote some crack horror wanting money end quote. Dotson
goes on to tell Kentucky State Police that he spent
hours researching it and Mickey had quote paranoid schizophrenia end quote.
Dotson said that Mickey was criminally insane. Dotson said that
Whitesburg Police Chief Tyrone Fields told Dotson that on Wednesday night,
(11:23):
the night prior to the shooting, that Mickey had called
him and when he got off the phone, he told
his wife quote that son of a bitch has lost
his mind end quote. In reference to the defendant, this
was based upon the paranoid thoughts defendant had disclosed. Chief
Fields was interviewed by the Kentucky State Police directly, Hill
stated defendant's demeanor had changed and there was chatter that
(11:47):
Mickey was unwell or off his rocker. He states that
he was looking for Mickey to discuss his mental health
and refer him to help that is available. Christine Bowling
of the Lecher County Sheriff's Office staff told Kentucky State
Police the staff had stated they were concerned about Mickey
due to his very strange behavior. Specifically, the day prior
(12:08):
to the shooting, Sheriff Steins told her that Daniel Dotson
had told him to give him money and kill himself
or they were going to kill his wife and daughter.
Bowling states the sheriff insisted on going to his home
to check on his family and made her get his
bulletproof vest on and have someone call and check on
his wife. This is confirmed by ring video footage provided
(12:31):
in reciprocal discovery. Bowling states that she and other staff
took the sheriff to doctor McDougall based on the strange behavior.
Bowling stated that during the food delivery he attended with
Michael Clark, the recipients were acting strangely and were wanting
him to take the food up on a hill on
a side by side. This collaborates what Clark told Kentucky
(12:54):
State Police. The Kentucky State Police detective testified that a
witness who was with mister Stein's immediately prior to the
incident did not notice anything peculiar. Detective Stamper testify mister
Stein's was with Michael Watts making a food delivery immediately
prior to the incident. This statement, in and of itself
was false, as interviews show that mister Stein's delivered food
(13:19):
with Michael Clark, not Michael Watts. Michael Clark, who was
very close with Stein's, was interviewed with Kentucky State Police
immediately following the incident and noticed Stein's had been off
and distant, like something was bothering him and his mind
was elsewhere was SHAWNA. Fraser, staff at the sheriff's office,
told Kentucky State Police she had asked doctor McDougall to
(13:41):
move up the sheriff's upcoming doctor's appointment because she was
very worried about him. She went with Bowling and the
sheriff's family to check defendant into the doctor. Fraser stated
the en route to the doctor, the sheriff stopped by
his wife's office to check on her. Fraser stated the
sheriff was encouraged to go to the doctor because he
had some kind of psychosis going on. In response, the
(14:03):
Kentucky State Police echoed back stress. Fraser responds, anxiety, and
I think that he between the weight loss the non sleep,
I think his anxiety was completely off the charts. I
do feel like he was in a psychosis. Cherry Stein's,
the defendant's aunt, told Kentucky State Police Detective Anthony Trotter
(14:26):
that Mickey was concerned that someone was on the back
street near where he lived watching his house. She stated
he did not act like himself. The Kentucky State Police
interviewer talking with sherry Steins stated that he had known
Mickey and attended high school with him. Detective Trotter opined
that Mickey was definitely not acting normal. Cherry told Trotter
(14:47):
that the sheriff wanted his aunt to check on his
family because he observed someone walking on the street. She
stated he seemed really freaked out and stated he could
not sleep. In a follow up phone call with Trotter,
Sherry Steins called and informed Trotter that Mickey had called
her on the day of the shooting and asked about
where his grandmother, nicknamed Bones, was that day. Bones had
(15:11):
been dead for three years at the time of that call.
Kentucky State Police body camera video for multiple officers on
scene very clearly shows mister Stein's paranoid and erratic behavior.
There are multiple other witnesses whose state similar observations and opinions.
The Kentucky State Police investigation is Detective Stamper's investigation. Giving
(15:34):
the overwhelming evidence of mister Stein's mental state prior to
and immediately following the shooting, Detective Stamper had no clear
basis for testifying that mister Stein's was in his same mind.
The Commonwealth is not required to put on exculplatory evidence
or evidence demonstrating lack of criminal responsibility. However, the Commonwealth
(15:56):
is not permitted to mislead and provide clearly false testimony.
When asked by the grand jury, defendant seeks to unseal
his mental health evaluation, in part without specifically stating the contents,
because the report shows the investigation that was relied upon
by the examiner is materially relevant to show the falseness
(16:17):
of the testimony, that nothing in the investigation showed defendant
was not in his sane mind. Simply stated the grand
jury was very focused on the mental health of Mickey Steins,
so much so that an unrecorded session was convened for
only that purpose to gather medical records related to his
mental health. The prosecutor is not a gatekeeper. The grand
(16:41):
jury is an independent body that saw information. It is
not a coincidence that Detective Stamper's last statement to the
grand jury was the response that his investigation revealed defendant
was in his sane mind. This makes the distinction between
a wooden stick and aluminum bat's trivial in comparison. The
(17:01):
statement that the investigation did not reveal anything that would
suggest defendant was not in a sane mind is not
just a difference in opinion, it is false. Bluntly, there
is not anything in the investigation that suggests otherwise, and
Kentucky State Police agrees in their interviews. So regardless of
what the investigation means to an expert, the question was
(17:25):
whether anything in the investigation showed Mickey Stein's was not
in a sane mind. And the true answer is there
are mountains of such evidence. It was up to the
grand jury to decide what they would do with those mountains.
The Commonwealth didn't have to go into the mental health
at the charging juncture, but when the grand jury decided
(17:46):
on their own they wanted to investigate this area. The
Commonwealth is not free to mislead or lie to them.
Let's jump on to Part B. The statement by Detective
Stamper that the bin Fields civil care was not related
in any way as faults and intentionally misleading and was
prejudicial to defendant. Just a reminder, there was a civil
(18:09):
case ongoing where an officer of Stein's was being sued
for having sexual relations with women that were on bail
in the judge chambers. During the proceedings, a grand juror
asked about whether Judge Mullins had any relation to that
case in any way. The prosecutor interjected and asked, to
(18:30):
your knowledge, was Judge Mullins involved, to which Detective Stamper said,
to my knowledge, no involvement. First, and most obviously, the
Kentucky State Police investigation made it very clear that the
events that were the subject of the civil suit, meaning
the Benfields improper sexual relationships with court participants, occurred in
(18:51):
Judge mullins chambers. Secondly, the Kentucky State Police interviewed attorney
and Mullen's close friend Daniel Dotson. The Kentucky State Police
interview with Dotson reveals that Kevin Mullins had questioned Dotson
about his legal involvement in the Fields case and and
why he had been to Prestonburg. In the same interview,
Dowson ponders if Mullins was supplying information in the civil
(19:15):
suit and suggests the Kentucky State Police talk to Ned
Pillersdwarf to determine if Mullins was supplying information because Mullins
thought Mickey was trying to get him. Dotson goes on
to note that Mickey's insurance appointed attorney Jonathan Shaw, get this,
y'all that one of the girls had a video of
(19:35):
Kevin Mullins with someone bent over a desk. The Kentucky
State Police asked specifically if they have the video in
this case and clarifies the civil case, and Dotson says yes.
The Kentucky State Police asked Dotson if, based upon his
experience and knowledge that Mickey's focus on Judge Mullins was
(19:56):
singular related to this whatever imagined civil suit slash criminal
penalties whatever he had in his mind. Dotson responded, real
and civil. Third. The Commonwealth was represented by the Attorney General.
During the recorded portion of the grand jury hearing in
twenty twenty two, the Age's investigators recorded in an interview
(20:19):
with Sabrina Atkins in relation to the case. She told
the Attorney General that she witnessed a tape of Judge
Mullings having sex with a woman in his chambers. She
stated she knew Mullins and that his face was clear
on the tape. This raises the question as to why
the Attorney General prosecutor rephrased the actual question of the
(20:39):
grand juror as opposed to not intervening in the in
his sane mind portion. At the base level, she is
charged with constructive knowledge of the Fields case and the
interview of Atkins that explicitly connected Judge Mullins to the
sex chamber events. The choice to not disclose this evidence
when questioned by the grand jury is highly suspicious. The
(21:02):
court chose to rephrase the question to allow the detective
to state that there was no relation in any way
between Judge Mullins and Field's case in a knowing presentation
of misleading testimony. Again in comparison to the Aluminum back case,
the misleading testimony in this grand jury is exponentially more prejudicial.
(21:23):
The purpose of the grand jury requires that it remain free,
within constitutional and statutory limits, to operate independently of either
prosecuting attorney or judge. An abuse of the grand jury
process poses an enormous risk to defendants. In theory, a
trial provides a defendant with a full opportunity to contest
(21:46):
charges against him or her. In practice, the issuance of
an indictment oftentimes has a devastating personal and professional impact
that a trial acquittal can never undo. The ex partake
carecharacter of a grand jury proceeding makes it particularly important
for the government to remember that the interest in a
(22:06):
criminal prosecution is not that it shall win the case,
but that justice shall be done. The grand jury is
not solely an investigative body. It also serves as a
protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. Unrestrained
misconduct and grand jury proceedings is inconsistent with the administration
(22:27):
of justice in the courts and should be redressed in
appropriate cases by the dismissal of indictments obtained by improper methods.
The allegations of government misconduct in this case make it
more vital that the Commonwealth presents accurate responses to the
grand juror's questions. Constitutionally, this body is to operate independently,
(22:49):
and they saw answers to their questions about the mental
health of the defendant and whether the field's civil case
was in any way related to the shooting. Nearly half
of the twin twenty five minute hearing centered on these issues.
The defendant is entitled to a dismissal of the indictment
based upon the evidence provided from the Commonwealth's investigation, as
(23:11):
briefly stated herein the Court would then decide whether the
violations result in dismissal with prejudice or whether the remedy
is to grant dismissal without prejudice, and the Commonwealth represent
this case to another grand jury minus the misleading and
false testimony, alternatively to rule based on the motions. The
(23:31):
defendant seeks an evidentiary hearing on these issues as set
forth in Baker and the last section. The defendant renews
its motion regarding the unrecorded unsworn testimony and incorporates its
previous motion by reference. Defendant reiterates his position set forth
in the motion to dismiss and incorporates the same. By reference,
(23:53):
defendant will simply reinerate the importance of recording to testimony
as set forth under criminal rules. Further, outside of legal
advice and the deliberations, information given orally to the grand
jury's testimonial, whether sworn or unsworn, and regardless of who
is providing that information, it is evident there was a
(24:14):
discussion of the case. Else there was no basis for
the grand jury's request. Finally, the definite notes again that
it is evident from the note Definditt has not been
provided an actual subpoena to any entity other than Appalachian
Regional Hospital. What information was sought and was not provided. Wherefore,
(24:35):
based upon the foregoing, Definite asks, the indictment in this
action be dismissed with prejudice. Alternatively, Definitant asked this court
for an evidentiary hearing on the matters presented above. So
that is the filing. They do have the handwritten note
by the jurors attached to this, and then some transcripts
(24:56):
from that grand jury proceeding. I mean that is a
big deal because that is going to be the crux
of his defense is he had a break. And you
see from people who knew him, they were concerned enough
they were actively looking to get him seen by his doctor.
So I will keep an eye on this for you guys.
If anything new comes up, i'll let you know. That
(25:17):
is it for this episode. I hope you guys have
a good rest of your Saturday and we will see
soon
What you know, alibyers. Welcome to another episode of Pretty
Lies and Alibis. I'm gg It's Saturday, October eleventh. I
hope you guys are having a good weekend so far.
I wanted to dive into this new motion to dismiss
the indictment against Sheriff Mickey Steins, who was caught on
camera shooting Judge Mullins in his chambers. This is a
(00:20):
very interesting filing to me. I've been curious as to
his state of mind leading up to the shooting, and
we're kind of getting a glimpse of that in this filing,
So let's jump right in. They cite prosecutor misconduct at
the grand jury proceedings as their reason for dismissing disindictment. Specifically,
the Commonwealth violated the defendant's constitutional rights and elicited false
(00:45):
and misleading testimony which prejudiced the defendant and tainted the
grand jury proceedings. The statement bade by Detective Stamper that
the defendant was in his sane mind as false and
intentionally misleading and prejudication to the defendant. An indictment returned
by illegally constituted an unbiased grand jury. If valid on
(01:07):
its face is enough to call for a trial of
charge on the merits. However, dismissal of an indictment by
a trial court is appropriate if it's established that a
violation substantially influenced the grand jury's decision to indict, or
if there's grave doubt the decision to indict was free
from the substantial influence of such violations. And in the
(01:30):
footnotes they are just citing cases that they're referring to.
They go through a couple of cases where the grand
jury indictment was dismissed due to prosecutors in those respective
cases eliciting false testimony. In the case at Bar, the
Commonwealth elicited and Detective Clayton's Stamper testified to multiple false
statements before the grand jury. This testimony prejudiced mister Stein's
(01:55):
and resulted in an indictment. This case was presented to
the grand jury approximately two months after the defendant's arrest
and preliminary hearing. The detective and Attorney General's Office had
ample opportunity to investigate and review evidence, including witness statements,
before presentation to the grand jury. After the Commonwealth concluded
(02:16):
its examination, multiple grand jurors ask very specific questions of
Detective Stamper, the answers to which clearly influenced the juror's
decision to indict. Had the Commonwealth presented truthful and accurate
testimony to the grand jury, the outcome would have likely
been different. On November twenty one, twenty twenty four, Kentucky
(02:37):
State Police Detective Clayton Stamper testify before the Lecher County
grand Jury seeking a murder indictment against Sheriff Mickey Steins.
Detective Stamper, the lead investigator in the case, is charged
with the duty to have knowledge of his agency's investigation,
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Detective Stamper and the
(02:58):
Commonwealth put on testimony that the investigation showed defendant was
in his sane mind. While the Commonwealth argues the defense
is confused about the rules of civil procedure, defendant respectfully disagrees.
Defendant does not submit to this court that the Commonwealth
needed an expert to testify as to the mental health
(03:20):
of the defendant. As stated in the recent status hearing,
the defendant believes it is unwise to even allow the
witness to go down that road, but they are free
to do. So. What the Commonwealth cannot do is mislead
the grand jury. This is exactly what happened as a
result of the reckless provision of information that is objectively untrue.
(03:41):
Defendant will outline its basis for this claim, but seeks
an evidentiary hearing to put on further evidence in support
of its position if necessary. First, Detective Stamper was questioned
about whether there was any type of hallucination, psychosis, depression,
any mental health issues in the documentation from doctor McDougall,
(04:02):
who saw the defendant the day prior to the shooting.
At the urging of his family and co workers, the
Assistant Attorney General then hands Stamper and asked him to
read a snippet of a record from doctor Stein's visit
to a medical provider the day before the shooting. However,
the Commonwealth and its witness do not disclose the same
records from the day before the shooting. His doctor diagnosed
(04:25):
an acute stress reaction In a little section here, it
says a quick Wikipedia glance reveals the following acute stress
reaction or ASR, also known as psychological shock, mental shock,
or simply shock, as well as an acute stress disorder
as a psychological response to a terrifying, traumatic, or surprising experience.
(04:48):
The reactions may include, but are not limited to, intrusive
thoughts or disassociation and reactivity symptoms such as avoidance or
hyper arousal. It may be exhibited for days or weeks
after the traumatic event. If the condition is not correctly addressed,
it may develop into PTSD. Another juror ass quote, So
(05:11):
doctor McDougall said, there's pretty much no mental health issues.
But was there any major physical health issues that he
was struggling with that might have affected his mental health?
End quote. The witness answered, no, not that I'm aware of.
The grand jury asked for medical records. A snippet was
read to them. They were told there was nothing of
(05:32):
note in them. The diagnosis from this visit makes it
evident that this is untrue. As in Baker, the witness
and prosecutor are charged with the knowledge gained in the investigation. Second,
the Commonwealth has represented that the first unrecorded meeting was
for the purpose of obtaining grand jury subpoenas for Appalachia
(05:52):
Regional Hospital records and Letcher County Jail records. However, the
Commonwealth's witness failed to note the mental health evaluations that
were initiated by the government via a visit at the jail.
These examinations were conducted at Kentucky River Community Care on
September twentieth, twenty third, and twenty fourth of twenty twenty four.
(06:13):
Those evaluations included observations of active psychosis. He had been
given Risperdoo and Sarah Quell by the jail prior to
the exams, as noted in the medical record. The same
notes indicated that mister Stein's had been seeing his primary
care physician for stress and anxiety. This is the same
doctor referenced in the grand jury transcript. Follow Up notes
(06:36):
from the mental health evaluator indicate that his condition improved
after the administration of the medications. The Commonwealth has stated
that one of the purposes of the unrecorded grand jury
hearing was to get subpoenis from mental health records and
jail records. In fact, the only evidence given from that
first grand jury meeting was a note saying the grand
(06:56):
jury sought all medical records, including but not limited to,
mental health records and pharmacy records for Sean Steins From
June nineteenth, twenty twenty four to present. We also request
any and all records from the detention center. It appears
clear that the mental health evaluation on September twenty third
and twenty fourth fall within the requested documents. These two
(07:20):
evaluations were done while Stein's was at the Leslie County
Detention Center, Yet the discovery provided detailing the exhibits given
to the grand jury curiously do not include any records
from the jail. They go on to say the Commonwealth
chose to ignore a record's request from the Grand Jury
from mental health and jail records from June twenty twenty
(07:40):
four to present, which was supposed to be the only
purpose of the unrecorded meeting. The Commonwealth then allowed their
witness to state the investigation did not reveal any evidence
of a mental health issue. Despite doctor McDougal noting an
acute stress reaction the day prior to the shooting and
mental health provider's work with the jail describing an active
(08:02):
psychosis and the jail prescribing medications, he failed to comply
or at best, selectively comply with the grand jury's request
for subpoenas. Coupled with the prosecutor allowing the detective to
make such a recklessly false statement falls well within what
Baker describes as misconduct. At the grand jury stage, the
(08:22):
grand jury requested all mental health records from June nineteenth,
twenty twenty four through present. They also requested all the
files from the Leslie County Jail. The jail referred mister
Stein's for the mental health evaluations. The jail administered the
psychological medications in conjunction with the evaluations. The Commonwealth's failure
(08:44):
to provide or mention these records is in direct violation
of the request by the grand jury, and thus is
in direct violation of the Baker mandate that prosecutors maintained
the independence of the grand jury investigation. They go on
to say the Commonwealth Health was not free to cherry
pick what items the grand jury got to hear about.
Given the specific requests, and both requests for mental health
(09:08):
records and jail records which would encompass the detention evaluations
he had, the failure to produce them alone is misleading.
Adding this with allowing the detective to state there was
no evidence of a mental health condition is misconduct. The
evidence of psychosis was within the records The grand jury
sought defendant concedes there was no requirement to put this
(09:31):
in evidence absent the grand jury's request. However, there were
two requests that were blatantly ignored and specific questions that
were answered falsely. The detective and prosecutor and Baker were
obviously underprepared for the grand jury and both were relying
on work done by others. However, the recklessly misleading information
(09:54):
prejudiced the defendant in Baker, and the facts in the
case are significant and more prejudic Additional Additionally, the Kentucky
State Police, under direction of lead investigators Stamper, conducted multiple interviews.
This is what's interesting to me is to hear from
people that knew Sheriff Steins and saw that something wasn't
right leading up to the shooting. Practically all the interviews
(10:18):
call into question the defendant's mental status in the week
preceding the shooting. On September twentieth, twenty twenty four, Kentucky
State Police interviewed attorney Daniel Dotson. Dotson said he had
told defendant to seek a mental health evaluation prior to
the shooting, and the defendant told him he was going
to see his family doctor. Dotson said defendant never threatened
(10:40):
him or Judge Mullins, but that he was so concerned
about Mickey's demeanor that he contacted the Kentucky Bar Association
to determine what action he could take. Dotson told the
Kentucky State Police that he spoke to Kevin Mullins and
told him Mickey was quote losing it and could not
take this kind of pressure. Reference to the civil suit
(11:01):
involving quote some crack horror wanting money end quote. Dotson
goes on to tell Kentucky State Police that he spent
hours researching it and Mickey had quote paranoid schizophrenia end quote.
Dotson said that Mickey was criminally insane. Dotson said that
Whitesburg Police Chief Tyrone Fields told Dotson that on Wednesday night,
(11:23):
the night prior to the shooting, that Mickey had called
him and when he got off the phone, he told
his wife quote that son of a bitch has lost
his mind end quote. In reference to the defendant, this
was based upon the paranoid thoughts defendant had disclosed. Chief
Fields was interviewed by the Kentucky State Police directly, Hill
stated defendant's demeanor had changed and there was chatter that
(11:47):
Mickey was unwell or off his rocker. He states that
he was looking for Mickey to discuss his mental health
and refer him to help that is available. Christine Bowling
of the Lecher County Sheriff's Office staff told Kentucky State
Police the staff had stated they were concerned about Mickey
due to his very strange behavior. Specifically, the day prior
(12:08):
to the shooting, Sheriff Steins told her that Daniel Dotson
had told him to give him money and kill himself
or they were going to kill his wife and daughter.
Bowling states the sheriff insisted on going to his home
to check on his family and made her get his
bulletproof vest on and have someone call and check on
his wife. This is confirmed by ring video footage provided
(12:31):
in reciprocal discovery. Bowling states that she and other staff
took the sheriff to doctor McDougall based on the strange behavior.
Bowling stated that during the food delivery he attended with
Michael Clark, the recipients were acting strangely and were wanting
him to take the food up on a hill on
a side by side. This collaborates what Clark told Kentucky
(12:54):
State Police. The Kentucky State Police detective testified that a
witness who was with mister Stein's immediately prior to the
incident did not notice anything peculiar. Detective Stamper testify mister
Stein's was with Michael Watts making a food delivery immediately
prior to the incident. This statement, in and of itself
was false, as interviews show that mister Stein's delivered food
(13:19):
with Michael Clark, not Michael Watts. Michael Clark, who was
very close with Stein's, was interviewed with Kentucky State Police
immediately following the incident and noticed Stein's had been off
and distant, like something was bothering him and his mind
was elsewhere was SHAWNA. Fraser, staff at the sheriff's office,
told Kentucky State Police she had asked doctor McDougall to
(13:41):
move up the sheriff's upcoming doctor's appointment because she was
very worried about him. She went with Bowling and the
sheriff's family to check defendant into the doctor. Fraser stated
the en route to the doctor, the sheriff stopped by
his wife's office to check on her. Fraser stated the
sheriff was encouraged to go to the doctor because he
had some kind of psychosis going on. In response, the
(14:03):
Kentucky State Police echoed back stress. Fraser responds, anxiety, and
I think that he between the weight loss the non sleep,
I think his anxiety was completely off the charts. I
do feel like he was in a psychosis. Cherry Stein's,
the defendant's aunt, told Kentucky State Police Detective Anthony Trotter
(14:26):
that Mickey was concerned that someone was on the back
street near where he lived watching his house. She stated
he did not act like himself. The Kentucky State Police
interviewer talking with sherry Steins stated that he had known
Mickey and attended high school with him. Detective Trotter opined
that Mickey was definitely not acting normal. Cherry told Trotter
(14:47):
that the sheriff wanted his aunt to check on his
family because he observed someone walking on the street. She
stated he seemed really freaked out and stated he could
not sleep. In a follow up phone call with Trotter,
Sherry Steins called and informed Trotter that Mickey had called
her on the day of the shooting and asked about
where his grandmother, nicknamed Bones, was that day. Bones had
(15:11):
been dead for three years at the time of that call.
Kentucky State Police body camera video for multiple officers on
scene very clearly shows mister Stein's paranoid and erratic behavior.
There are multiple other witnesses whose state similar observations and opinions.
The Kentucky State Police investigation is Detective Stamper's investigation. Giving
(15:34):
the overwhelming evidence of mister Stein's mental state prior to
and immediately following the shooting, Detective Stamper had no clear
basis for testifying that mister Stein's was in his same mind.
The Commonwealth is not required to put on exculplatory evidence
or evidence demonstrating lack of criminal responsibility. However, the Commonwealth
(15:56):
is not permitted to mislead and provide clearly false testimony.
When asked by the grand jury, defendant seeks to unseal
his mental health evaluation, in part without specifically stating the contents,
because the report shows the investigation that was relied upon
by the examiner is materially relevant to show the falseness
(16:17):
of the testimony, that nothing in the investigation showed defendant
was not in his sane mind. Simply stated the grand
jury was very focused on the mental health of Mickey Steins,
so much so that an unrecorded session was convened for
only that purpose to gather medical records related to his
mental health. The prosecutor is not a gatekeeper. The grand
(16:41):
jury is an independent body that saw information. It is
not a coincidence that Detective Stamper's last statement to the
grand jury was the response that his investigation revealed defendant
was in his sane mind. This makes the distinction between
a wooden stick and aluminum bat's trivial in comparison. The
(17:01):
statement that the investigation did not reveal anything that would
suggest defendant was not in a sane mind is not
just a difference in opinion, it is false. Bluntly, there
is not anything in the investigation that suggests otherwise, and
Kentucky State Police agrees in their interviews. So regardless of
what the investigation means to an expert, the question was
(17:25):
whether anything in the investigation showed Mickey Stein's was not
in a sane mind. And the true answer is there
are mountains of such evidence. It was up to the
grand jury to decide what they would do with those mountains.
The Commonwealth didn't have to go into the mental health
at the charging juncture, but when the grand jury decided
(17:46):
on their own they wanted to investigate this area. The
Commonwealth is not free to mislead or lie to them.
Let's jump on to Part B. The statement by Detective
Stamper that the bin Fields civil care was not related
in any way as faults and intentionally misleading and was
prejudicial to defendant. Just a reminder, there was a civil
(18:09):
case ongoing where an officer of Stein's was being sued
for having sexual relations with women that were on bail
in the judge chambers. During the proceedings, a grand juror
asked about whether Judge Mullins had any relation to that
case in any way. The prosecutor interjected and asked, to
(18:30):
your knowledge, was Judge Mullins involved, to which Detective Stamper said,
to my knowledge, no involvement. First, and most obviously, the
Kentucky State Police investigation made it very clear that the
events that were the subject of the civil suit, meaning
the Benfields improper sexual relationships with court participants, occurred in
(18:51):
Judge mullins chambers. Secondly, the Kentucky State Police interviewed attorney
and Mullen's close friend Daniel Dotson. The Kentucky State Police
interview with Dotson reveals that Kevin Mullins had questioned Dotson
about his legal involvement in the Fields case and and
why he had been to Prestonburg. In the same interview,
Dowson ponders if Mullins was supplying information in the civil
(19:15):
suit and suggests the Kentucky State Police talk to Ned
Pillersdwarf to determine if Mullins was supplying information because Mullins
thought Mickey was trying to get him. Dotson goes on
to note that Mickey's insurance appointed attorney Jonathan Shaw, get this,
y'all that one of the girls had a video of
(19:35):
Kevin Mullins with someone bent over a desk. The Kentucky
State Police asked specifically if they have the video in
this case and clarifies the civil case, and Dotson says yes.
The Kentucky State Police asked Dotson if, based upon his
experience and knowledge that Mickey's focus on Judge Mullins was
(19:56):
singular related to this whatever imagined civil suit slash criminal
penalties whatever he had in his mind. Dotson responded, real
and civil. Third. The Commonwealth was represented by the Attorney General.
During the recorded portion of the grand jury hearing in
twenty twenty two, the Age's investigators recorded in an interview
(20:19):
with Sabrina Atkins in relation to the case. She told
the Attorney General that she witnessed a tape of Judge
Mullings having sex with a woman in his chambers. She
stated she knew Mullins and that his face was clear
on the tape. This raises the question as to why
the Attorney General prosecutor rephrased the actual question of the
(20:39):
grand juror as opposed to not intervening in the in
his sane mind portion. At the base level, she is
charged with constructive knowledge of the Fields case and the
interview of Atkins that explicitly connected Judge Mullins to the
sex chamber events. The choice to not disclose this evidence
when questioned by the grand jury is highly suspicious. The
(21:02):
court chose to rephrase the question to allow the detective
to state that there was no relation in any way
between Judge Mullins and Field's case in a knowing presentation
of misleading testimony. Again in comparison to the Aluminum back case,
the misleading testimony in this grand jury is exponentially more prejudicial.
(21:23):
The purpose of the grand jury requires that it remain free,
within constitutional and statutory limits, to operate independently of either
prosecuting attorney or judge. An abuse of the grand jury
process poses an enormous risk to defendants. In theory, a
trial provides a defendant with a full opportunity to contest
(21:46):
charges against him or her. In practice, the issuance of
an indictment oftentimes has a devastating personal and professional impact
that a trial acquittal can never undo. The ex partake
carecharacter of a grand jury proceeding makes it particularly important
for the government to remember that the interest in a
(22:06):
criminal prosecution is not that it shall win the case,
but that justice shall be done. The grand jury is
not solely an investigative body. It also serves as a
protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. Unrestrained
misconduct and grand jury proceedings is inconsistent with the administration
(22:27):
of justice in the courts and should be redressed in
appropriate cases by the dismissal of indictments obtained by improper methods.
The allegations of government misconduct in this case make it
more vital that the Commonwealth presents accurate responses to the
grand juror's questions. Constitutionally, this body is to operate independently,
(22:49):
and they saw answers to their questions about the mental
health of the defendant and whether the field's civil case
was in any way related to the shooting. Nearly half
of the twin twenty five minute hearing centered on these issues.
The defendant is entitled to a dismissal of the indictment
based upon the evidence provided from the Commonwealth's investigation, as
(23:11):
briefly stated herein the Court would then decide whether the
violations result in dismissal with prejudice or whether the remedy
is to grant dismissal without prejudice, and the Commonwealth represent
this case to another grand jury minus the misleading and
false testimony, alternatively to rule based on the motions. The
(23:31):
defendant seeks an evidentiary hearing on these issues as set
forth in Baker and the last section. The defendant renews
its motion regarding the unrecorded unsworn testimony and incorporates its
previous motion by reference. Defendant reiterates his position set forth
in the motion to dismiss and incorporates the same. By reference,
(23:53):
defendant will simply reinerate the importance of recording to testimony
as set forth under criminal rules. Further, outside of legal
advice and the deliberations, information given orally to the grand
jury's testimonial, whether sworn or unsworn, and regardless of who
is providing that information, it is evident there was a
(24:14):
discussion of the case. Else there was no basis for
the grand jury's request. Finally, the definite notes again that
it is evident from the note Definditt has not been
provided an actual subpoena to any entity other than Appalachian
Regional Hospital. What information was sought and was not provided. Wherefore,
(24:35):
based upon the foregoing, Definite asks, the indictment in this
action be dismissed with prejudice. Alternatively, Definitant asked this court
for an evidentiary hearing on the matters presented above. So
that is the filing. They do have the handwritten note
by the jurors attached to this, and then some transcripts
(24:56):
from that grand jury proceeding. I mean that is a
big deal because that is going to be the crux
of his defense is he had a break. And you
see from people who knew him, they were concerned enough
they were actively looking to get him seen by his doctor.
So I will keep an eye on this for you guys.
If anything new comes up, i'll let you know. That
(25:17):
is it for this episode. I hope you guys have
a good rest of your Saturday and we will see
soon
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.