WHITESBURG, Ky. — We now have a good idea about what prompted the cancellation of the most recent court hearing in the case against the former Letcher County sheriff accused of murdering a district judge.

Former Letcher Sheriff Shawn Mickey Stines is charged with murder for shooting and killing Letcher District Judge Kevin Mullins while the two talked in the judge’s chambers. The shooting was captured on video, but Stines’ attorneys have said they plan to pursue an insanity defense.

The case had been set for a pretrial conference on Dec. 18, but Special Judge Christopher Cohron canceled the hearing before it began, saying something had come up in the case that needed to be addressed first, but offering no details. A prosecutor was overheard to say the reason for the cancellation would become clear with a court filing in a few days.

On Monday, defense attorneys for Stines filed a motion asking Judge Cohron to recuse himself, citing his relationship with the victim in the case, late District Judge Kevin Mullins.

“The undersigned has known the presiding judge as a former prosecutor and as a judge and does not seek his recusal lightly,” attorneys Jeremy and Kerri Bartley write in the motion. “However, the eyes of the world have been upon this litigation. The visual optics in this case must demonstrate impartiality.”

As a basis for the request, the motion says the defense recently came into possession of a video of Mullins and the special judge in the case, Christopher Cohron, of Bowling Green, attending a meeting of the Kentucky Judicial Commission on Mental Health just one week prior to the shooting that killed Mullins. The motion goes on to say the two judges sat side-by-side, “inches apart,” for about two hours, and that Mullins’ widow also attended the meeting.

“The presiding judge [Cohron] did not disclose this fact to the parties, despite the close connection in time to the events at issue, leading to an appearance of impropriety,” the motion reads.

The motion goes on to say that the fact that the two judges served on the same committee would not normally be sufficient to seek a recusal, but other events in the case suggest bias. In particular, the motion points to Cohron disallowing the use of Stines’ psychiatric report in an upcoming bond hearing.

“At this point, there has been no legal basis as support for the refusal to unseal the [psychiatric] report,” the motion reads. “While that issue is one to be addressed further at a later date, the objective observer would rationally believe there is inherent bias from the video and this would lead the judge to prohibit this normally admissible report from coming into evidence.”

A copy of the motion follows: