Updated: Judge Feeney keeps gag order in effect until amendment filed and Intervention hearing held in Bullock case

This afternoon at 3 PM in Courtroom One, Judge John Feeney was expected to rule on a motion clarifying the protective order in the Bullock case. This was to clarify and give direction to Humboldt County Counsel on public record requests.

It was tentatively granted last week by Judge Reinholtsen. Today the City of Eureka joined Humboldt County Counsel' s office. City was represented by Cyndi Day-Wilson, the city attorney and County Counsel was represented by Jefferson Billingsley.

There was also an intervention hearing. It was private but when court resumed Judge Feeney mentioned that scheduling was discussed and that it was anticipated that the preliminary hearing may take upto 2 mornings. Prosecuting attorney Elan Firpo was present for intervention but Luke Brownfield represented the Humboldt County D.A's office for the hearing on the gag order.

Judge Feeney maintained the gag order but he asked Bullock's attorney Kaleb Cockrum to submit a proposed amendment order to the original order because when oral arguments were heard today, Judge Feeney said that he felt what Cockrum was asking, "beyond the scope of the motion  (originally) filed on January 10, 2014.

Billingsley had asked the court on January 10 and reiterated his request about direction and clarification on how the County should respond to public record requests. The City of Eureka asked the same question.

In addition to his request that law enforcement and City and County staff and attorneys be prevented from making statements to the media, Cockrum asked the court to prohibit any public record requests that referred to his client and the specific crimes he allegedly committed. Cockrum said general questions such as policies and definition of 5150 and such information was okay.

Billingsley said that because this is a high profile case, it would be difficult to define a clear line and be sure that Bullock's rights were not violated. Ms. Wilson agreed and had similar concerns. The D.A's office has taken no position.

1 public record request has already been submitted.

Judge Feeney said, "This is a very important issue" and when Cockrum added that the D.A's office agreed to some kind of gag order but not the same order he had filed, the Judge repeated his statement on the original order being beyond the scope of the motion, asked Cockrum to file a proposed amendment order, see if all parties could agree. He also asked Cockrum to provide written case law for the additional changes he was asking to the original order.

If all parties could not agree on a proposed amendment, then there would be a hearing. Until that time, the gag order is in effect.