John Chiv: Hearings rescheduled in Stobaugh case; as for other issues public can decide if all parties are being treated fairly

May 16, 2025

Hearings rescheduled in Stobaugh case; as for other issues public can decide if all parties are being treated fairly

I just did a post on the motion to continue by the District Attorney and receipt of subpoenaed records in sexually violent predator Richard Stobaugh's case. So this post will be only be an update with new information from today's hearing.

At 8:17 a.m., Judge Kaleb Cockrum asked Deputy District Attorney Whitney Timm if she wanted to come inside the courtroom. She was here waiting outside Courtroom.2. I was here early since Judge Cockrum had not made a decision on my media request yesterday. This morning I was told that Judge Cockrum is going to address media requests in open court. I don't know yet if KRCR/KAEF NorthCoast News request has been granted. In my media request, I wrote that I hope my blunt coverage of Judge Cockrum will not impact my media request. Once again, Judge Cockrum used his courtroom to waste time and show he has power when he could have denied and granted the requests just as every other judge. He usually cites specific law. He did not today.

8:22 a.m. Public Defender Luke Brownfield was let into the courtroom.

Dates have changed. There are three more hearings scheduled. The next hearing is on for receipt of subpoenaed records. That update will be added to this post.

You can decide after you read my coverage from today if Judge Cockrum is being fair in his decisions regarding other media and me and whether he is being fair to the DA and the public. Even Mr. Brownfield was fair and had the same objection to media requests. Judge Cockrum's denial of my media request but allowing KRCR's request which the same law he cited would apply to shows he is punishing me because I covered facts left out by other media. He is punishing me because I reported about his ruling in Trevor Earley was overturned on appeal.

There is no law prohibiting taking a photo of a convicted sexually violent predator. Then his denial of yet another request by Ms. Timm about public access shows he is on a power trip and petty and being selective about who he choses to punish. He is using his robe to punish who he wants in the courtroom.

Unlike Judge Cockrum, I didn't publish a complaint about him because I apply the same criteria to all news tips. This claim is setting off some red flags, there is no evidence to corroborate was claimed. To that person, I am not the Commission on Judicial Performance. That is the agency who gets paid to protect the public and hold judges accountable. There is nothing in what was sent to me so far that indicates there is anything to what you claim, let alone it being newsworthy.

Judge Kelly Neel in the Daryl Jones case gave valid reasons for denying the media requests and also made the same decision for both KRCR and me.

Let's see if the pattern to only deny me continues. In the past, my media requests have been granted.

NorthCoast News was not in the courtroom. No other media was in the courtroom.

When the courtroom opened, Judge Cockrum first addressed receipt of subpoenaed records requested by the DA. He told Ms. Timm that "madame clerk had checked this morning and there are no additional records in the Court's file."

Ms.Timm told Judge Cockrum the State Department told her records would be ready today.

California Department Jane Hu said, "I haven't received copy of records." She offered to assist Ms. Timm. Either Ms. Hu or another attorney will appear at the 5/20 hearing which is for receipt of the same records.

Ms. Hu had no objection to the DA's motion to continue. Could not hear Mr. Brownfield. He does not speak into the mic sometimes just like Judge Cockrum.

Ms. Timm asked to continue 5/21 evidentiary hearing because "the detective who investigated the child porn allegation has a medical appointment which will take five hours."

The evidentiary hearing was rescheduled to 6/11.

Judge Cockrum summed up the media requests by me and KRCR accurately.

He asked attorneys for input. Ms. Timm submitted; Ms. Hu deferred to the Court. Mr. Brownfield objected to video/camera footage and submitted.

Judge Cockrum denied my request for the 5/16/25 hearing as untimely. That hearing was not even in e court as of Monday 5/12 and there is a box to explain why the 5 days requirement is not met. That is a techicality and Stobaugh was not there so it does not matter. The other hearings my request was timely and several days before said hearing.

Judge Cockrum denied my request for the other hearings because I said I wanted a booking photo. He said the law has changed, I assume he means the Ninth Circuit ruling but he didn't state what law. Stobaugh is convicted and there is no law prohibiting me taking his photo.

I could have used other words but I was rushing to get the request in for 5/16/25. I don',t think it would have mattered. Judge Cockrum was going to deny it and now it is on court record.

Regarding KRCR , he said he wants people to be anonymous but granted the request for the same future hearings. KRCR is allowed to take video only at the next hearing of attorneys and Stobaugh. "No filming. Only one camera and one video. I don't intend to have further hearings," said Judge Cockrum.

Allowing KRCR to film Stobaugh is the same as a booking photo.

Ms. Timm asked about streaming future hearings or an overflow in another room. She mentioned in the past hearings have been held in the Board of Supervisor Chambers.

Ms. Hu had no opinion.

"I do want to have an open forum," said Judge Cockrum. "There should be no public access." Judge Cockrum added it would "not be on the same lines" as other events. "This is the largest courtroom. I do intend to allow media. I thougjt about perhaps putting media in a jury box. I have been worried about a buffer between gallery and counsel table. Can't put anyone in jury box." Motion denied.

Again, other judges have allowed media in the jury box and held hearings in Board of Supervisor chambers.

Ms. Hu bought up response to oral comments at the placement hearing.

"I think most comments will be repetitive," said Judge Cockrum. "If there is new information, I will state on record. "

Judge Cockrum said Stobaugh does not have to be there for the 5/20 hearing "but he has to appear "for the 6/21 and 7/14 hearing.

Ms. Hu asked the Court for a minute order for Stobaugh's appearance.

5/20/25: Records provided to DA. Time estimate for evidentiary hearing is one day.