New footage reveals what happened before a sheriff shot a judge inside a courthouse

Newly released video is giving the public a much closer look at the moments before a Kentucky sheriff shot and killed a judge inside the judge’s chambers, and attorney Nathaniel “Nate” Broughty says the footage fills in a part of the story that had been missing from the start.

In his latest video, Nate the Lawyer walks through what he says is the most important development so far: the newly released camera footage appears to show former Letcher County Sheriff Shawn “Mickey” Stines using Judge Kevin Mullins’ phone, entering the passcode, checking for a number, and then reacting in a way that quickly turned deadly.

That sequence matters because, for months, the biggest question in the case has been the simplest one. Why would a sheriff shoot a judge he reportedly knew well, worked with for years, and had just shared lunch with earlier that same day?

Broughty’s report does not claim to answer that question completely. But it does argue that the new footage narrows the mystery.

Two Men Who Knew Each Other Well

Broughty begins by laying out the background, and it is one reason this case has drawn so much attention.

He says Stines was born in 1980, became sheriff in 2018, and was reelected in 2022. Before that, according to Broughty, Stines had worked as a bailiff in Judge Kevin Mullins’ courtroom. Mullins, he notes, was born in 1970 and had served as a district judge for 15 years after previously working as a prosecutor.

That history matters because this was not some chance argument between strangers.

As Nate tells it, Stines and Mullins had a close personal and professional relationship. He points to reports from people in Letcher County who said the two men were longtime friends and that they had never seen obvious hostility between them.

That is part of what makes the footage so disturbing. This was not a stranger storming into a courtroom. This was a sheriff walking into the chambers of a judge he knew well.

Lunch, Conversation, Then A Return To Chambers

In Broughty’s retelling of the day, the timeline starts out looking almost ordinary.

He says the judge, the sheriff, and two court staff members were together in the judge’s chambers around noon. A few minutes later, he says, Stines stood up, said something to the group, joked with Mullins, and left, with the judge appearing amused.

Then, according to Nate’s breakdown of the footage, the group later went to lunch together at a local restaurant called Street Side.

By around 1:38 p.m., Broughty says everyone was back in the judge’s chambers, with Mullins putting on his robe and preparing to hear the rest of the day’s cases. At 2:32 p.m., he says, the judge was still on the bench looking over papers when Stines came back into the courtroom and headed straight for chambers.

That is where the mood changed.

According to Broughty, court had already ended for the day, and Stines asked everyone else to leave so he could speak with Mullins alone.

That request, in hindsight, now looks ominous.

The Phone Moment May Be The Key

Nate the Lawyer spends most of his attention on the moment that followed, and it is easy to see why.

He says the footage shows Stines on his own phone first, then leaning forward and asking Mullins if he can see the judge’s phone. Mullins hands it over. Then, according to Broughty, Stines asks for the passcode and enters it himself.

From there, Broughty says it appears the sheriff was checking whether a particular number was saved in the judge’s phone.

He also refers to testimony that Stines tried to call his daughter and then tried to call her from Mullins’ phone as well. In the clip he reviews, someone confirms that officers had established that Stines’ daughter’s number was on the judge’s phone.

Then, according to Broughty, everything changed.

He says Stines saw “whatever he sees,” became animated, stood up, pulled his gun, and started shooting the judge.

That is the hinge point in the whole case.

If Broughty is right, and the footage is as direct as he describes, then the legal fight may turn heavily on what Stines saw, what he believed it meant, and whether a jury thinks that matters enough to change the charge.

The Shooting Was Followed By A Strange Calm

One of the eeriest details in Broughty’s report is what happened right after the gunfire.

He says court staff heard the shots and began evacuating, which is exactly what people would do if they thought there was an active shooter in the building. But he also points out that the shooter himself, Stines, walked out as well.

Broughty describes him leaving the building, walking down the street, then turning around, going back past evacuating staff, and reentering the courthouse to surrender.

Then comes the bodycam video.

In the footage played by Nate, Stines can be heard telling officers not to kill him. Broughty says the former sheriff appeared paranoid and kept scanning for threats. He also notes that Stines repeatedly said someone was trying to kill him and asked officers to be fair.

At one point, according to the video Broughty reviewed, Stines said that if he left that building, he would not “take another breath.”

That kind of statement is one reason this case feels so unsettled. Even after the shooting, nothing about Stines’ behavior reads as simple or easy to explain.

Prosecutors See Murder. Defense Sees Extreme Emotional Disturbance.

Broughty says the sheriff is facing first-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter counts, which is no surprise given that the shooting happened on camera inside chambers.

But he also says the defense is pushing what many people know as a heat-of-passion argument, though under Kentucky law it is being framed as extreme emotional disturbance.

Nate explains this part clearly.

He says that in many states, a heat-of-passion claim can reduce what would otherwise be murder down to manslaughter if the defense can show the defendant was overwhelmed in a sudden emotional state. He gives the classic example of someone discovering a spouse in bed with another person and reacting immediately and violently.

Broughty says Stines’ legal team appears to be arguing something along those lines here. In clips from the defense lawyers that he included, counsel says there was a sudden inflammation of emotion in the moments before the shooting, and that the full story may lie in what happened just before the tape segment most people have now seen.

One lawyer says they believe something in that moment made their client feel there was “no other choice” than to do what he did.

That is obviously a staggering claim.

And it sets up the central courtroom battle ahead: not whether Stines shot Mullins, but whether the law should treat it as calculated murder or a sudden emotional eruption severe enough to reduce the offense.

Rumors About The Daughter Collide With Other Dark Allegations

Broughty also addresses the swirl of motive theories that have followed the case.

One rumor, he says, was that the judge may have had some kind of inappropriate relationship with the sheriff’s daughter. That theory gained traction because Stines allegedly checked Mullins’ phone for his daughter’s number shortly before the shooting.

But Broughty says the daughter, Llaya Stein, has publicly denied that rumor. In TikTok videos he played, she said the stories being told about her were made up and accused people of turning her pain into gossip.

That denial is important because it undercuts one of the most widely repeated public theories.

Nate then turns to a darker possibility, though he is careful to frame it as allegation rather than proven fact.

He says there were claims that Mullins, a deputy, and possibly others were tied to a sextortion scandal involving women who allegedly faced pressure for sexual favors in exchange for favorable treatment. Broughty notes that a former deputy, Ben Fields, had already been convicted and imprisoned in a related case, and he plays clips from recordings in which a woman named Sabrina Atkins alleges that Mullins was involved as well.

He also notes that Atkins’ attorney said it was like they were “running a brothel out of that courtroom,” and that Stines had been named in a civil rights lawsuit connected to the broader allegations.

Then Broughty points to another explosive detail: Atkins can also be heard in a recording claiming Stines was involved too.

That is where the story becomes even more tangled.

If those allegations are true, then the case may not be about a father reacting to his daughter at all. It may instead be about fear, exposure, betrayal, or panic tied to a scandal much bigger than one phone call.

The Motive Still Isn’t Clear, But The Phone Seems Central

Broughty ultimately says what many viewers are probably thinking: without knowing exactly what was on that phone, people are still left to speculate.

He says if the motive really was about protecting a daughter, he can imagine a jury being more open to a manslaughter theory based on extreme emotional disturbance. But he also acknowledges that the daughter has now denied any such relationship, which leaves that theory weakened.

So then what is left?

Broughty openly wonders whether the sheriff feared the judge might expose him, or whether there was some other piece of information on the phone that made him snap. His basic point is that Stines appeared fine up until he looked at the device, and then he did not.

That observation may end up being one of the most important in the case.

What happened in those seconds may decide whether a jury sees a man who briefly lost control, or a man who made a deadly choice and now wants the law to treat that choice as something less than murder.

That is why this new footage matters so much. It does not solve the case, but it gives the public and, eventually, a jury a clearer view of the moment where everything changed.

And frankly, that moment is chilling enough on its own. A sheriff asks for a judge’s phone, enters the passcode, looks at the screen, and within seconds a courthouse becomes a murder scene.

Broughty is right about one thing above all else: whatever was on that phone now sits at the center of the whole case.