GASCONADE COUNTY — Hermann Advertiser-Courier’s Cathi Utley was ordered released on her own recognizance on Jan. 29 from the Franklin County Adult Detention Center after being sentenced that morning to five days in jail by Craig Hellmann’s 20th Circuit Court on allegations of direct contempt of court.

Presiding Judge Renee Hardin-Tammons, Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District, signed the Order to Show Cause addressed to Franklin County Sheriff Steve Pelton. The order led to Utley’s release.

“You are hereby directed to file your return to this Order to Show Cause by Feb. 13, stating therein why the relief prayed for in said petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted,” according to Hardin-Tammon’s release order. “A stay of the enforcement of Judge Craig Hellmann’s judgment of criminal contempt is ordered pursuant to Rule 92.04 pending determination of the issues raised by the petitioner.”

According to a petition submitted on Jan. 29 to the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District, Utley’s attorney, Joseph P. Welch, wrote that on Jan. 21, during the capital murder trial of Kenneth Lee Simpson, Hellmann’s trial court alleged that Utley violated decorum orders. However, Welch continues that the court made no mention of its media order, which he says conflicted with the decorum order.

Utley is listed as the Advertiser-Courier’s general manager and was present at the trial. Simpson, who was later found guilty, was being tried with the March 2023 death of Hermann Det. Sgt. Mason Griffith and the wounding of Hermann Patrolman Adam Sullentrup. In the Judgment of Contempt, Utley was alleged to have, “brought her phone into the courtroom and used it to take pictures and a video of the proceedings.”

Hellmann’s trial court publicized decorum expectations for the public and media on Sept. 29, 2025, and  Dec. 4,  2025, which he alleges Utley violated.

According to previous reporting, prohibited devices included smart watches, smart glasses or wearable augmented-reality devices, any device capable of recording, transmitting, live- streaming audio, video, still images, or text, regardless of form or brand.

The Media Order prohibited audio, video and electronic coverage in any phase of the trial. However, still photography was listed as permitted “during non-evidentiary portions of the trial.

“Still photographers shall not move about the courtroom while proceedings are in session, nor shall they engage in any movement that attracts undue attention. More than one photographer may not participate at one time unless approved in advance,” Number 14 of the Media order outlined. The court appointed approved photographers for each day.   

“The court made no mention of its media order, which conflicted with the decorum order,” Welch wrote in the Writ for Habeas Corpus. “But instead of making a final judgment of direct contempt at that time, the trial court announced that he would assign this matter to another judge so that the trial court himself could be a witness.”

Utley was ordered to leave, and reporters with the Advertiser-Courier were barred from the trial.

Utley alleges in court documents that she was not provided with paperwork explaining what happened. Furthermore, the trial court did not enter any order or docket entry regarding contempt until Jan. 26, five days after the proceedings. Welch further alleges that he emailed both the judge and clerk regarding the contempt matter, but was not allowed into the sealed case file until Jan. 28 at 9:06 a.m., less than 24 hours before Utley was ordered to appear.

He also contacted the court reporter for a transcript and was informed that “she was too busy.”

“The docket shows that the trial court and staff have been working long hours on the murder trial,” Welch noted.

Utley was contacted on Jan. 26 by a caller with a blocked number and told to appear at 8:15 a.m. on Jan. 29 in the Franklin County Court.

“Two days, with less than 24 hours before she was ordered to appear, counsel and petitioner were able to finally review exhibit 2 and understand that the trial court had not re-assigned this matter to another judge, was not proceeding in indirect contempt, and that she had already been found guilty and was to be sentenced the next morning,” Welch wrote.

Utley appeared in Hellmann’s Franklin County courtroom on Jan. 29 with her attorney. Welch wrote that the motion to set the case aside was denied and, without allowing her allocation, sentenced her to five days in the Franklin County Adult Detention Center. She was taken into custody by Sheriff Pelton.

In Utley’s defense, Welch wrote:

The trial court failed to prove direct contempt because it depended on witnesses other than the judge himself, and did not fix Utley’s punishment.

Factual findings ignore the trial court’s media order, which, when read with the decorum order, creates ambiguity as applied to the petitioner as a member of the press. Factual findings also do not mention Utley’s status as a member of the press.

Utley was allowed to bring her phone into the courtroom as a member of the press because “her camera was broken.”

“It is difficult to understand how she can be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without an explanation of how she could have violated the media order and the decorum order when read together, as the media order creates relevant exceptions to the decorum order,” Welch continued. “All facts outside of the trial court’s personal knowledge, and require a trial in indirect contempt, where the petitioner can present her good faith defense that her conduct was not an intentional or willful violation of the trial court’s orders.”

Welch continues to argue that the court changed the matter from indirect contempt to direct contempt “some time after” Utley was ordered to leave the courtroom, that she was not afforded allocution at sentencing, and was sentenced without allowing her or counsel to speak in her defense. Utley was also not allowed to call a witness who was present or show the court letters in her support.

“The sentence is excessive,” Welch wrote. “It is cruel and unusual. It is an unfair punishment to a 65-year-old widow and mother with no criminal history, who is a beloved member of the community and was acting at all times in good faith.”

He further alleges that the punishment was done in a manner to maximize Utley’s public humiliation in a courtroom packed with her peers, colleagues, staff and spectators, during a high-profile capital case.

Welch asked on Jan. 29 that the court set aside the judgment, vacate the finding of direct contempt, and release Utley, or remanded and assign to a different judge to proceed as indirect contempt.

A stay of enforcement of Hellmann’s judgment of criminal contempt was granted, pending determination of the issues raised by Utley’s attorney.

Pelton was ordered to release the petitioner on her own recognizance.

According to documents on Missouri Case.net, Utley was not required to pay a bond and signed a document to comply with conditions.