05/14/2026
Judge Questions Former State’s Attorney’s Handling Of Child Sexual Assault Case
Perceived Prosecutorial Failures Driving Defense Motion To Dismiss Charges
-Dana Gray
ST. JOHNSBURY — A judge questioned a former Caledonia County State’s Attorney on Wednesday about her handling of a child sexual assault case that defense attorneys are now trying to get dismissed.
Attorneys for Patrick Barrett, 45, are asking Judge Heather Gray to dismiss felony charges against their client that follow accusations that he sexually assaulted a child beginning when the girl was in 8th grade and continuing until she was 17 years old. Attorneys Jennifer Cleveland and Amy Davis claim the state failed to timely and fully comply with the disclosure of pertinent documents as they were preparing Barrett’s defense.
Barrett, who has been held in jail since his arrest in January 2024, was supposed to pick a jury on May 7, but that hearing was canceled because the state, on May 5, disclosed to the defense a trauma assessment that had been done on the alleged victim two years ago. It’s a document, the defense claims, that was long overdue in getting to them and only came to them when Deputy State’s Attorney Simon Mayo, by chance, happened to find it.
Judge Heather Gray heard arguments on May 7 regarding claims of discovery violations, but she decided a full hearing should take place on Wednesday. One of the things she wanted was an explanation of how the case’s discovery process played out under the direction of former Caledonia County State’s Attorney Jessica Zaleski.
Zaleski left the office last summer and moved out of state, but her involvement in Barrett’s case dates back to his arraignment in January 2024 and continued until her departure 18 months later. Her presence at the hearing on Wednesday meant appearing via video, which she had not done when the 9 a.m. hearing began, leaving current State’s Attorney Claire Burns defending her office’s efforts to get Zaleski to appear remotely.
“I emailed her immediately following the hearing,” said Burns. “I confirmed with her that she needed to be here, provided the link. I spoke with her on the phone yesterday morning, doubling down that she needed to be here. I have our admins right now calling and emailing and doing everything we can to get her here … I will call right now and get her here.”
After a brief recess, the hearing resumed and Zaleski was online.
Before Judge Gray began questioning Zaleski about her decisions related to sharing or not sharing documents with Barrett’s defense lawyers, the judge determined that the state’s failure to disclose the trauma assessment document long before May 5 was a discovery violation.
She referenced court orders issued by the former presiding judge in Caledonia County, Judge Michael Kainen, that directed that material related to the alleged victim, gathered as part of a Department of Children and Families case, be provided to the defense via the state if the subject matter was related to the criminal case.
Judge Gray asked Zaleski about an email sent in December 2023 that Zaleski received that included a statement from the alleged victim that notes, “I have a voice I’ve told you everything was made up regardless of what you think.” The judge wanted to know if Zaleski intended to share the email with the defense. Zaleski said she could not recall her position either way about sharing the document.
“Generally speaking, emails would be considered attorney work product. This particular email would have been pursuant to a confidential juvenile matter for an ongoing custody case,” she said.
The judge also asked Zaleski about an email that Cleveland sent in August 2024 that notes a request for a copy of the trauma evaluation. Zaleski could not recall how she responded.
“I don’t know if there’s any documentation around that, but turning over a trauma eval that was done pursuant to a confidential juvenile matter would not have been turned over by me without a court order,” she said, “or without the court’s permission. I just wouldn’t have done that.”
Judge Gray then asked Zaleski what she did in response to Judge Kainen’s order in September 2024 regarding disclosure of DCF documents to the defense or a subsequent judicial order in April 2025.
She said she didn’t remember those orders.
Judge Gray said it appeared to her that the state never intended to provide the trauma assessment to the defense.
Said attorney Mayo, “I think you can infer from what you’ve heard from Attorney Zaleski that the state, informed by counsel for the juvenile and counsel for DCF, took the position that the trauma assessment was not exculpatory and wasn’t covered by Judge Kainen’s orders, and that’s why it was not disclosed.”
The conversation turned to the trauma assessment and its value in the case, which led attorney Mayo to call for a closed courtroom because the evaluation was part of a juvenile case. The hearing was not immediately closed as the judge explained the criminal court is meant to be public, and going behind closed doors requires a particular process. Attorney Cleveland took the opportunity to tell the court that the case has significant public interest.
The hearing continued with attorney Cleveland making general claims regarding the document and what its late disclosure means for much more (six months) additional time to prepare for trial.
The judge invited the parties to file a motion to seek closed-door discussions regarding the assessment to require the defense attorneys to justify their argument that the state’s failure to disclose it is prejudicial to Barrett.
Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, Cleveland asked the judge to lift the hold without bail order against Barrett, considering the continued delay of the resolution of his case. Judge Gray said she’s not ready to do that, and Barrett left the courtroom in restraints for a return to the Northeast Regional Correctional Facility in St. Johnsbury.
