Fact check: What is the current status of David DePape's bail hearing?

1. Why the supplied documents fail to answer the specific question—Missing the name in plain sight

All nine supplied source analyses explicitly state they do not reference David DePape or his bail hearing. The documents that were inspected include a state criminal bail schedule, local court calendars, and Napa County district attorney media updates, and their publication dates range from early 2025 to late October 2025, but none list DePape or a hearing entry ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]}. Given that court calendars and DA media pages are the primary public avenues for hearing notices and press updates, the absence of DePape’s name in those documents strongly indicates that the current status is not captured within the provided set of records.

2. What the documents do contain—Context on bail procedure and calendars

The bulk of referenced materials cover the California felony bail schedule and county-level bail reports, which explain how bail amounts are set and how calendars are posted, but they are procedural rather than case-specific ^{[1] [6] [7] [8]}. The Napa County media center and court calendar entries included are standard repositories for filings and hearing listings; their presence in the dataset shows the right places were checked, but the absence of a named entry for DePape in those repositories means the specific hearing status remains unreported in these sources ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

3. Timing matters—What the publication dates imply about recency and gaps

The documents range in date from February 2025 through October 27, 2025, indicating a contemporaneous sweep of materials around the mid-to-late 2025 window ^{[1] [3] [4] [6]}. Despite that recency, no mention of DePape implies either that his bail hearing occurred outside these published windows, was sealed, not posted publicly, or simply not covered by these particular public listings. The uniform absence across multiple public-facing record types suggests a real information gap rather than a single-source omission ^{[2] [5] [8]}.

4. Alternative explanations—Why the hearing might not appear in public documents

There are several plausible, non-exclusive reasons for the absence: the matter could be pending with no scheduled public hearing, resolved without a public entry, part of sealed proceedings, or primarily prosecuted in a jurisdiction whose notices were not among these files. Each of those explanations would produce the same observable result: no name on the publicly available calendars and media pages supplied ^{[1] [3] [2]}. The dataset does not permit determination among these possibilities because it lacks any direct case-level docket entry or official press release referencing DePape.

5. Cross-source triangulation—What consistency and bias reveal

Treating every source as potentially biased, the collection nonetheless shows consistent silence on DePape across court, DA, and bail-schedule records. That consistency reduces the likelihood that a single editorial or administrative bias explains the absence. Instead, the pattern points to an information vacuum in the provided records. The data’s focus on general bail policy and calendar mechanics rather than individual case reporting reflects selection bias in the dataset toward procedural documentation, not case updates ^{[1] [7] [4]}.

6. What additional records would resolve the question—How to find a definitive status

To establish DePape’s bail hearing status with certainty, one should search: case-specific court dockets in the relevant county or federal district; public prosecutor filings and press releases naming the defendant; online case lookup tools for criminal dockets; and local court minute orders or virtual calendar entries around the suspect timeframe. The current package did not include these specific items, so the most direct next step is targeted docket searches or contacting the clerk of court in the jurisdiction where the complaint was filed ^{[3] [4]}.

7. Bottom line for the user—What we can state and what remains unknown

From the supplied materials, the only defensible conclusion is that the current status of David DePape’s bail hearing is not documented in these sources. The documents provide relevant context about bail schedules and typical public records used to report hearings, but they contain no affirmative listing, date, ruling, or bail amount tied to DePape. Confirming his bail hearing status will require consultation of a case-level docket, a prosecutorial statement naming him, or a court clerk confirmation—none of which are present in the dataset provided ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]}.