05/10/2026
Dismissal Sought In Child Sexual Assault Case Over Last Minute Discovery
Attorneys For Patrick Barrett Argue State’s Procedural Failure Discovered At 11th Hour Warrants Dismissal Of Charges
ST. JOHNSBURY — Attorneys for a man who has been held in jail for over two years on allegations of sexual assault on a child say the last-minute discovery of new information is grounds for dismissal.
Patrick Barrett, 45, has been held in jail since being arrested in January 2024 based on allegations that he sexually assaulted a child beginning when the girl was in 8th grade and continuing until she was 17 years old.
Thursday was supposed to be the day for him to pick a jury, and his trial was set to start next week. The court had even sent out a special questionnaire to jurors due to the sensitive nature of the case and had summoned more people for jury service to ensure the pool was large enough to find 14 impartial people willing to serve on a case of alleged child sexual assault.
Barrett was transported from jail to the court on Thursday, but it wasn’t to determine his potential jurors; the time was instead used for his attorneys to call foul on the prosecution for information not provided to them until Tuesday.
Davis Legal Solutions attorneys Amy Davis and Jennifer Cleveland have served as defense attorneys since the inception of the case, and on Wednesday, they filed a motion to dismiss two felonious sexual assault charges against Barrett. They claim the state failed to timely and fully comply with the disclosure of pertinent documents.
It was only by chance, Davis said, that Deputy State’s Attorney Simon Mayo found in the state’s case paperwork on Monday afternoon a trauma assessment done on the person identified by the state as the victim.
That document carries a lot of weight, according to the defense attorneys. They say the assessment was done by Dr. Marilyn Gabriel, who the state was planning to put on the witness stand to, in part, talk as an expert about reasons why victims of trauma sometimes aren’t consistent with their stories.
The alleged victim in the case is a witness for the state’s prosecution against her alleged abuser, but in an email she reportedly wrote to a Department of Children and Families worker in December 2023, it states, “I have a voice I’ve told you everything was made up regardless of what you think.”
The defense attorneys say prior to Tuesday morning, they believed that the state was calling Dr. Gabriel as a “blind” expert, meaning she had no first-hand contact with the alleged victim. In fact, their motion notes that when the doctor was deposed by them on Nov. 19, 2025, she said she hadn’t met the alleged victim “had not written a report in connection with this case and maintained that she had not come to any conclusions about the matter.”
The trauma assessment that attorney Mayo provided to them on Tuesday was done by Dr. Gabriel on March 20, 2024.
“Defense ascertained that this report was contained in the state’s physical file,” the motion to dismiss notes, but was not disclosed to the defense until the eve of trial.
Attorneys Davis and Cleveland said there’s much in the assessment that needs greater scrutiny, and the fact that it wasn’t disclosed until now constitutes a violation of Barrett’s right to due process.
They said in their motion that the trauma assessment is significant information to the defense.
“References to the complaining witnesses’ state of mind go to her credibility and may be used for impeachment purposes,” the motion states.
The motion to dismiss notes a prolonged struggle by the defense to get information from the state regarding the case. Their discovery of the photographed email page noting the alleged victim’s “made everything up” statement in February 2024 led to a direct request for all associated documents in the email chain as they related to DCF. That wasn’t provided until Tuesday, which the defense attorneys note was a failure to comply with two earlier court orders.
The state’s prosecution is being handled by attorney Mayo, with assistance from attorney Nicholas Battey with the Attorney General’s Office, but there have been changes in the state’s attorney’s office since the case began. Attorney Mayo was not with the office when the case was filed, and Jessica Zaleski was the state’s attorney at the time; it wasn’t until last summer that Zaleski left the office and attorney Claire Burns took over as state’s attorney.
The defense attorneys note attorney Zaleski’s role in the case and attorney Cleveland’s efforts to get documents through her.
Attorneys Davis and Cleveland state in their motion to dismiss that upheaval in the state’s attorney’s office is not an excuse.
“While the prosecuting attorneys have changed over the duration of the case, the responsibility for the prosecution of this case has always belonged to the state of Vermont,” they noted.
The defense attorneys believe that attorney Zaleski was purposely not forthcoming with the discovery documents.
“She went to great lengths to bury this,” said attorney Davis.
Said attorney Cleveland, “(Attorney Zaleski) never intended for us to get the trauma assessment or anything in the DCF file.”
The motion to dismiss calls the failure by the state to adhere to discovery rules a “willful violation.”
“The previous state’s attorney went above and beyond to conceal this information from the Defense,” the motion notes.
Attorney Davis said inaction by attorney Zaleski to divulge pertinent documents in the case against Barrett calls into question attorney Zaleski’s treatment of other cases.
She said disclosure of the relevant documents in a timely manner would have kept the trial on track for a defendant who has waited a long time to stand before a jury.
“If this (trauma assessment) had been disclosed in March or April (2025) when it was authored, there would be a trial next week,” said attorney Davis.
She said a lot of effort went into getting the case to a jury draw on Thursday, which couldn’t happen.
“There’s thousands of dollars down the drain,” she said.
The motion contends that dismissal of the charges is the only proper response.
“The discovery violation in this case is clear, serious and inexcusable. Dismissal of this matter is the only appropriate remedy to protect Mr. Barrett’s due process rights,” the motion states.
A delay would be lengthy, the defense attorneys said, for a defendant who has been held without bail for a long time. If the judge were to call for a delay, the earliest trial time likely couldn’t happen until September, said attorney Davis.
Judge Heather Gray has set a hearing on the motion for dismissal on Wednesday.
Reached by email on Friday, attorney Mayo said objections to the motion for dismissal will be filed with the court prior to the hearing next week.
