On Tuesday, January 20, 2026, WJHL reported that the Kentucky Supreme Court sent a motion to disqualify a judge in a sheriff murder case back to the lower courts. The case involves former Letcher County Sheriff Mickey Stines, who faces charges of first-degree murder and the murder of a public official in connection with the shooting death of District Judge Kevin Mullins in September 2024.
Attorneys representing Stines had filed a motion seeking the recusal or disqualification of Judge Christopher Cohron, who is presiding over the case. The motion referenced footage from a judicial meeting where Cohron and Mullins were seen sitting next to each other just one week before Mullins’ death. Stines’ legal team argued that this video could lead a reasonable observer to believe that Cohron has a level of bias in the case.
The Supreme Court of Kentucky has now filed an order remanding the case back to the Letcher County Circuit Court. Deputy Chief Justice Robert Conley, in the court’s order, noted that Stines’ motion cites two state laws. The first, KRS 26A.015, pertains to when a judge should disqualify themself from a case. The second, KRS 26A.020, allows a party to request the Chief Justice to appoint a special judge.
Conley stated that Stines’ motion asked the state supreme court to recuse Cohron, but described the action being sought as ambiguous, as it was unclear which of the two cited laws was being used as the basis for the motion. The order stated that it is not possible to discern whether the motion is asking Judge Cohron to recuse himself under KRS 26A.015 or seeking the Chief Justice’s appointment of a special judge via a KRS 26A.020 affidavit.
Conley also noted that, regardless of this ambiguity, previous rulings by the Supreme Court require factual allegations when a party seeks a judge’s recusal. If a judge grants the motion and recuses themself, a substitute judge is appointed, concluding the matter. However, if the judge denies the motion, they must enter into the record facts that would be relevant to an appellate review.
Conley wrote that parties should present the reasons for requesting recusal and give the judge an opportunity to grant or deny the request before filing a KRS 26A.020 affidavit, based on the language and out of deference for the judge before whom a case is pending.
Conley found that Judge Cohron should have the opportunity to either grant or deny the motion seeking his recusal from the case. The Supreme Court ordered the matter remanded and sent it back to the Letcher County Circuit Court, directing Cohron to review Stines’ motion. If Cohron denies the motion, Stines and his attorneys can seek a further review from the Supreme Court of Kentucky.
Source: WJHL
