Chapter 13 - Barton on trial Barton sat in court wearing a navy suit.
Not the polo.
No mud.
No hose.
The prosecution played the garage video.
No sound for parts.
Visual enough.
Ottilie walking toward stuffed kitten.
Barton spraying.
Me running.
Kick.
The defense paused before my kick.
“Mrs. Prescott attacked first.”
The prosecutor corrected:
“After the hose began.”
Order matters.
Barton’s lawyer cross-examined me.
“You kicked a sixty-three-year-old man.”
“Yes.”
“Hard enough to knock him down.”
“Yes.”
“You were angry.”
“Yes.”
“You did not first ask him why he had the hose.”
“No.”
“You used violence.”
“I used force.”
“Violence.”
“Fine. Yes.”
No sainthood.
Then:
“Your daughter was not physically injured by the water.”
“She was terrified and cold.”
“No fracture.”
“No.”
“No laceration.”
“No.”
Good.
The jury saw limits.
Then Cedric testified.
The hardest part.
“Did you authorize your father to discipline Ottilie?”
“Yes.”
“Did you authorize physical punishment?”
“No.”
“Did you authorize removal of belongings?”
“Some.”
“Did you expect Linnea might react?”
“Yes.”
“Did you intend to use that reaction in family court?”
“If it was relevant, yes.”
His lawyer had prepared him not to minimize.
Then:
“Did your father know that?”
“Yes.”
Barton stared at his son.
Cedric looked back once.
No dramatic tears.
Then the prosecution introduced Barton’s transition notes under evidentiary rulings.
Not all.
Relevant sections.
“Capture instability if occurs.”
“Reduce toys.”
“Ninety-day stability.”
The judge limited financial details to motive.
No full business audit.
Then Dr. Monroe testified about Ottilie’s statements only within admissible rules; some hearsay restrictions applied. The child’s forensic interview was used where permitted with proper safeguards.
Ottilie did not testify in open court.
The prosecution did not need her if other evidence sufficed.
Good.
Barton took the stand.
Risky.
He said:
“I believed Linnea had taught Ottilie that every limit was abuse.”
“Did you spray her?”
“Yes.”
“Why?”
“She was screaming.”
“Was she threatening anyone?”
“No.”
“Breaking property?”
“No.”
“Running into street?”
“No.”
“She wanted her toy.”
“Yes.”
“Why throw it?”
“To show her behavior had consequences.”
“What behavior?”
“Asking to go home repeatedly.”
Silence.
That answer hurt him.
Then:
“Did Cedric tell you not to scare her?”
Barton looked at his son.
“Yes.”
“Did you believe spraying a five-year-old with a hose would scare her?”
“I believed it would interrupt the tantrum.”
Not answer.
Jury noticed.
Verdict:
Guilty on child endangering.
Guilty on one domestic-violence-related offense under applicable relationship statute.
Not guilty on a broader assault count requiring proof the jury did not find beyond reasonable doubt.
Mixed.
Sentencing later.
Barton’s grandparent-visitation petition collapsed after conviction.
Dismissed without prejudice? Better court denied due current safety findings, future petition possible only on changed circumstances.
Then outside court reporters asked me if justice was done.
I said:
“The criminal case decided specific charges. My daughter still has to live with what happened.”
Then left.
The bigger financial case still remained.
Barton’s lawyer had kept company issues mostly out of child trial.
May you like
Now regulators and civil plaintiffs were free to drag them into daylight.
And Prescott Commercial Ventures was running out of money.
