CONFLICT OF INTEREST? Stines moves to recuse judge - Murder of Judge Mullins - Attorney Analyzes скачать в хорошем качестве

CONFLICT OF INTEREST? Stines moves to recuse judge - Murder of Judge Mullins - Attorney Analyzes

In this motion, Mickey Stines argues that the current judge cannot continue to hear the case due to events that occurred between the judge and Judge Kevin Mullins a week before Stines shot Judge Mullins in his chambers. We take a look at the motion and the legal grounds he cites. Regardless of the merit of the motion, did Stines just hand him an easy way to resolve the venue question that's still outstanding? 0:00 Introduction 1:03 10000 foot view first - garbage basis, but possible strategic misstep 2:06 Shout out to MountainTop Media 3:07 The motion 4:31 Meeting the standard - here's the Kentucky statute 8:23 And here's Canon 3 of Judicial Ethics 11:15 Back to the motion: what they're relying on and the process of disqualification 17:16 Here's the facts 18:50 They're bolstering their argument with something they're not disclosing 19:21 Judges typically don't disclose trivial interactions 21:57 What's in a nod? 26:10 The defense has bad things to say about Judge Mullins - true, or delusional? 34:14 I'm not buying the public is concerned about two judges sitting on a commission 37:02 The mental health report is confidential by law, so is it good evidence of bias? 39:39 The lawyer's CYA 41:10 What's the sharing of accolades? 48:05 Why this might be a bit of a strategic error - the CW's petition to change venue 48:34 Kentucky considers the state's ability to get a fair trial 50:49 A county of 20k people voted in both Mullins and Stines 54:12 Seems like Stines wants to stay in Letcher County though 58:30 What's normally done with these motions? Take evidence, or wait until voir dire 1:00:26 So Stines's motion offers an easy resolution of both issues 1:02:28 The bottom line