On June 18, 2025, Timothy Riddle stood before Barry County Judge Michael Schipper for a resentencing hearing related to his 2021 high-speed chase and gas station standoff in Woodland, Michigan. The case, already subject to scrutiny after the Michigan Court of Appeals vacated Riddle’s armed robbery conviction, was a matter of public interest and rightly so.
So why wasn’t the media required to follow the very rules Michigan courts have in place to ensure fair and ethical courtroom coverage?
Michigan Court Rule MCR 8.109(C): Media Coverage Must Be Approved
Michigan has long recognized the power of the press in shaping public perception of ongoing criminal proceedings.
That’s why MCR 8.109(C) and Administrative Order 1989-1 govern all forms of media access in state courts, including:
- Prior written requests for photography or recording
- Judicial approval
- Restrictions to protect due process and impartiality.
Other Recordings. On motion of an attorney or of a party appearing on his or her own behalf, a court may permit audio recording of a part or all of a proceeding and may permit photographic recording of visual exhibits. The court may regulate the manner of audio or photographic recording so that it does not disrupt the proceeding. An audio or photographic recording made under this rule may be used solely to assist in the prosecution or defense during the proceeding recorded; it may not be used publicly.
MCR 8.109(C),
Mechanical Recording of Court Proceedings
These rules exist to prevent prejudicial publicity and to ensure courtrooms remain focused on justice, not media spectacle.
They also provide a guide for the media to aid in this.
Yet in Riddle’s case, Hastings Banner writer and press photographer Dennis Mansfield was present in the courtroom (positioned in the jury box, specifically) taking and publishing clear images of the defendant, defense attorney, and even courtroom labels without any documentation of judicial approval on the court record.
This is quite interesting, coming from a judge who denies access to video recordings and stifles journalism.
No Request Filed. No Order Issued. So How Was Press Coverage Allowed?
A search of the public court record for Case No. 2021-0000000789-FC yields no documentation of a media request, press order, or formal approval by Judge Schipper for the June 18, 2025 hearing.
That matters.
Not because courtroom photography is inherently wrong, but because the application of courtroom rules must be consistent, and this doesn’t appear to be.
In many Michigan jurisdictions, especially in high-profile or emotionally charged cases, defendants are denied this kind of press access entirely, or judges heavily regulate coverage to shield jurors or victims. Defense attorneys are often instructed to stay quiet, while prosecutors enjoy open mics and unfiltered narrative control.
Yet here we have a felony resentencing, in a case where the original conviction was partially overturned by the Michigan Court of Appeals, and the local media is allowed full visual access to courtroom dynamics without any judicial documentation?
That’s not just a procedural oversight. That’s a red flag.
And Timothy isn’t alone.
Sources close to the situation tell me that neither the family or Ms. Cobb’s defense attorney were made aware of media presence that day. If Mr. Mansfield had in fact filed the form, a copy would have been sent to her representation. Nothing was sent.
Was Mr. Mansfield perhaps tipped off to attend?
Transparency Isn’t Optional. It’s a Constitutional Imperative.
Michigan’s media coverage rules were created to balance public access with the rights of defendants—especially the right to a fair trial and unbiased sentencing.
When judges apply these rules arbitrarily, or not at all, it creates:
- Disparate treatment of justice-impacted people, especially those without political or financial privilege.
- Inconsistent courtroom ethics, where media access hinges on familiarity or favoritism.
- Exceptionally unfair media exposure, especially in cases with resentencing, appeals, or vacated charges, as happened in Riddle’s case.
If Timothy Riddle’s appearance was fair game for public consumption, the court should’ve followed its own rules and issued an order reflecting that decision.
This Isn’t About Riddle. It’s About Judicial Accountability.
It’s easy to dismiss this as a minor procedural issue in a high-drama case. But that’s the exact kind of thinking that normalizes judicial discretion as unchecked authority.
Courtroom media rules were created because unchecked media access can directly violate:
- The presumption of innocence
- The right to a fair trial
- The equal application of justice.
Judge Michael Schipper’s failure to issue a press release order or to log a public record of media approval violates both the spirit and letter of Michigan’s transparency rules.
The Bottom Line
Media access is not inherently harmful.
But it must be equitable, ethical, and codified, not quietly permitted on a judge’s whim. If Timothy Riddle’s hearing was open to the press and the images were approved by the court for capture, the court record should show that.
And if it doesn’t? That’s not transparency. That’s performative justice.
What You Can Do
- Consider cancelling your Hastings Banner subscription, citing unethical reporting standards.
- Report future violations of administrative court rules to the Region 5 SCAO office; clutch has already turned this case in particular forward.
- Submit a complaint to the Judicial Tenure Commission.
