On August 12, 2025, Barry County District Court held the resentencing of Scott Handley, a hearing with major public interest. According to court records, only one media entity filed the required “Request for Film and Electronic Media Coverage” under Michigan Court Rule 8.108.
That was me.
According to sources, Judge Schipper even made a special point to say, “where’s Rita?” solely to deny my request on record.
However, Dennis Mansfield of the Hastings Banner, the only other media outlet that regularly covers Barry County courts, did not file any request and hasn’t over multiple cases. Yet, somehow, they were in the courtroom, photographing the proceeding, and publishing a full article with courtroom photos just one day later.
How the System is Supposed to Work
Michigan’s court rules are clear:
Any media outlet wanting to record, photograph, or otherwise cover a court proceeding electronically must submit a request in advance. The judge considers the request, notifies attorneys, and enters an order allowing or denying coverage.
This process isn’t just red tape; it’s designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and equal access to all members of the press.
Under Michigan Court Rule 8.119(D)(1), courts are required to maintain a case history, also referred to as the register of actions, through their automated case management system. This isn’t optional; it’s mandatory. The case history logs all filings, orders, and key actions taken in a case, providing an accurate record of what happens and when.
What Actually Happened
On August 11, 2025, the court’s docket shows my media request as the only one filed. Notice of that request was sent to the attorneys the same day.
No other requests appear in the docket. No joint filings. No last-minute add-ons. Just mine.
But when the hearing happened the next day, I couldn’t attend due to work obligations. And despite never having filed a request, the Hastings Banner was in the courtroom, taking pictures and later publishing them.
Preferential Treatment?
This isn’t the first time Barry County courts have appeared to bend rules for certain favored outlets. When one publication can bypass the official process entirely while others have to follow it to the letter, it undermines the principles of equal access and transparency.
Media access should never depend on who you are, how cozy you are with courthouse staff, or whether you’ve been around long enough to get “special treatment.” It should depend on following the same rules every journalist is held to.
Why This Matters
If court staff can waive the rules for one outlet but not another, that’s not transparency; it’s gatekeeping. And when the public’s right to open court proceedings is filtered through selective access, trust in the justice system erodes.
And it begs the question: if they’ll hide records and deny access to recordings, what else are they hiding?
Sunshine isn’t sunshine if it’s only shining where the courthouse wants it to.
What’s Next
Michigan’s courts should apply one set of rules for all journalists, not a special set for favored outlets. Equal access is not optional; it’s the foundation of open courtrooms.
Today, I’m calling on the Michigan Supreme Court and the Judicial Tenure Commission to investigate this blatant disregard for media access rules and hold Judge Schipper accountable.
This man needs more oversight, not less, as he is eroding trust at an alarming rate.
? Love what we do? Support Clutch.
