A review of the public court record for Case No. 2021-0000000789-FC reveals no documented media request, press order, or formal judicial approval for the presence of Hastings Banner photographer Dennis Mansfield at Timothy Riddle’s June 18, 2025 resentencing hearing before Judge Michael Schipper, despite Michigan Court Rule MCR 8.109(C) requiring prior written approval for all courtroom photography and recording.
Key Points
MCR 8.109(C) and Administrative Order 1989-1 require prior written requests, judicial approval, and protective restrictions for all courtroom photography. No documentation of compliance appears in the public record for Riddle’s June 18 hearing.
Dennis Mansfield of the Hastings Banner was positioned in the jury box during the resentencing and published photographs of the defendant, defense attorney, and courtroom without any documented court order on the record.
The same pattern has been alleged in Brinna Cobb’s hearing, where sources indicate Mansfield was present without documented approval and neither the family nor defense counsel were notified in advance.
Riddle’s original armed robbery conviction was vacated by the Michigan Court of Appeals prior to this resentencing, making the unregulated press presence at a reconvened proceeding especially significant.
Clutch Justice has referred this matter to the Region 5 SCAO office. The JTC confirmed judicial misconduct by Schipper in 2014; the Michigan Supreme Court issued a remand under Docket No. 167549.
On June 18, 2025, Timothy Riddle appeared before Barry County Judge Michael Schipper for a resentencing hearing in a case already under scrutiny. The Michigan Court of Appeals had previously vacated Riddle’s armed robbery conviction, finding constitutional violations. The resentencing was a matter of public interest.
What is also a matter of public interest is whether the media coverage of that hearing followed the rules Michigan courts established to govern it.
What MCR 8.109(C) Requires
Michigan has long recognized the power of press coverage to shape public perception of ongoing criminal proceedings. MCR 8.109(C) and Administrative Order 1989-1 exist to balance that access against defendants’ rights, requiring prior written requests for photography or recording, judicial approval, and protective restrictions to prevent prejudicial publicity and preserve due process.
Those rules apply to every Michigan court proceeding, including resentencing hearings in cases where convictions have been vacated on appeal.
What the Record Shows
A search of the public court record for Case No. 2021-0000000789-FC finds no documented media request, no press order, and no formal approval by Judge Schipper for Mansfield’s presence at the June 18 hearing. Mansfield was positioned in the jury box, photographing the defendant and defense attorney, and those photographs were published by the Hastings Banner.
The absence of a documented press order does not necessarily establish that no approval occurred. What it does establish is that if approval was granted, it was not memorialized in the public record, which is itself a departure from the transparency that MCR 8.109(C) is designed to produce.
This matters because courtroom media rules are not applied consistently across Michigan courts. In many jurisdictions, defendants in high-profile or emotionally charged cases are denied press access entirely, or coverage is heavily restricted to protect jurors and victims. Defense attorneys are routinely instructed to limit public statements while prosecutors retain open access to narrative-shaping. Selective or undocumented press access at a resentencing, following a vacated conviction, compounds that disparity.
A Pattern Across Cases
The Riddle hearing is not the only instance in question. Sources indicate Dennis Mansfield was present at Brinna Cobb’s hearing without documented formal approval. Sources close to the situation report that neither Cobb’s family nor her defense attorney received advance notice of media presence that day. If a formal media request had been filed under MCR 8.109(C), a copy would have been required to go to her representation. No copy was received.
A judge who has blocked video recording and restricted press access in other proceedings allowing undocumented media access in a case involving a vacated conviction, without any memorialized approval order, is not applying rules. It is applying discretion, selectively, with no public record of the basis for that discretion.
Why Consistency Is a Constitutional Requirement
Courtroom media rules exist because unchecked press access can directly affect the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair proceeding, and the equal application of justice. When those rules are applied inconsistently, the people most harmed are those without political or financial privilege: defendants navigating resentencing after appeals, individuals whose cases are being reopened, and communities that lack the media infrastructure to push back on unequal treatment.
If Timothy Riddle’s resentencing was properly open to press photography, the court record should reflect that decision. It does not.
Future violations of Administrative Order 1989-1 and MCR 8.109(C) in Barry County proceedings should be reported to the Region 5 SCAO office. Clutch Justice has already referred this matter forward.
JTC complaints regarding Judge Schipper’s conduct can be filed directly with the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission.
Quick FAQs
What does MCR 8.109(C) require for courtroom media coverage?
Prior written requests for photography or recording, judicial approval, and protective restrictions to prevent prejudicial publicity. These rules apply to all Michigan courts, including resentencing hearings in cases where convictions have been vacated.
What happened at Timothy Riddle’s resentencing on June 18, 2025?
Hastings Banner photographer Dennis Mansfield was present in the jury box, photographing the defendant and defense counsel. A search of the public court record found no documented media request or judicial approval order for his presence.
Was this the only case where undocumented access was alleged in Schipper’s court?
No. Sources indicate Mansfield was also present at Brinna Cobb’s hearing without documented formal approval, and neither her family nor her defense attorney received advance notice of media presence.
What has Clutch Justice documented about Judge Schipper’s conduct more broadly?
Clutch Justice has filed a formal JTC complaint regarding Judge Schipper. The JTC confirmed misconduct in 2014; the Michigan Supreme Court issued a remand under Docket No. 167549. Clutch Justice has also referred the media access concern in the Riddle case to the Region 5 SCAO office.
Sources
Cite This Article
Bluebook: Williams, Rita. Why Was Timothy Riddle’s Resentencing Exempt from Michigan’s Courtroom Media Rules?, Clutch Justice (July 24, 2025), https://clutchjustice.com/2025/07/24/why-was-timothy-riddles-resentencing-exempt-from-michigans-courtroom-media-rules/.
APA 7: Williams, R. (2025, July 24). Why was Timothy Riddle’s resentencing exempt from Michigan’s courtroom media rules? Clutch Justice. https://clutchjustice.com/2025/07/24/why-was-timothy-riddles-resentencing-exempt-from-michigans-courtroom-media-rules/
MLA 9: Williams, Rita. “Why Was Timothy Riddle’s Resentencing Exempt from Michigan’s Courtroom Media Rules?” Clutch Justice, 24 July 2025, clutchjustice.com/2025/07/24/why-was-timothy-riddles-resentencing-exempt-from-michigans-courtroom-media-rules/.
Chicago: Williams, Rita. “Why Was Timothy Riddle’s Resentencing Exempt from Michigan’s Courtroom Media Rules?” Clutch Justice, July 24, 2025. https://clutchjustice.com/2025/07/24/why-was-timothy-riddles-resentencing-exempt-from-michigans-courtroom-media-rules/.
Work With Clutch Justice
Procedural accountability in small-county courts requires someone paying close enough attention to notice when the rules stop applying equally.
I map how institutions hide from accountability. That map is what I sell.
Government Accountability & Institutional Forensics · Procedural Abuse Pattern Recognition · Legal AI & Court Systems Domain Expertise
