Defendant Barnett Takes Stand in Child Sexual Assault Trial

Assistant District Attorney Frank Collins continued to present the state's case against UW-River Falls professor Tom Barnett on Thursday. Barnett is accused of stemming from a confrontation with a then-13-year-old girl at the on Aug. 16, 2011. 

After calling , the prosecution called six more Thursday before resting at about 2 p.m. In Judge Eric J. Lundell's courtroom, the jury of eight men and five women heard testimony from the alleged victim's then-boyfriend, the alleged victim's father, the sexual abuse response team (SART) nurse who examined the girl, a DNA analyst from the state crime lab,  Detective Geoff Willems and Hudson Police Detective Jeff Knopps.

The Girl's Boyfriend

The first witness Thursday morning was the alleged victim's then-boyfriend who was at the theatre with the girl on Aug. 16. He testified that he and the girl were no longer dating largely because of the ongoing court proceedings.

He admitted that he had sexual contact with the girl in the theatre that night and later lied about it. The boy said he and the girl knew that they should tell the truth about their sexual activity and having his DNA tested forced the issue.

The boy gave his recollection of what happened during the confrontation with Barnett in the theatre that night. His account included Barnett claiming he was theatre security and that he had video surveillance footage of the teens. He said Barnett talked with him briefly before sending him away to talk alone with the girl.

The boy said he didn't leave the auditorium right away, and watched shortly as Barnett and the girl spoke before he headed to the ticket counter to ask about security personnel and surveillance cameras. Once informed by the ticket clerk that no security person was on staff and no surveillance cameras were installed in the auditorium, the boy said he hurried back to the auditorium in time to see Barnett calmly walking out, and he rushed past Barnett to check on the girl.

He testified that he never actually saw Barnett touch the girl, but he was out of the auditorium for about five minutes.

When he returned to the theatre, he said he could tell the girl was upset. After some probing, he said the girl told him that she was touched sexually by Barnett. He said he made sure Barnett was no longer in the theatre and when approached by theatre staff he told them to call the police.

Defense Attorney Tim O'Brien's cross-examination focused on what the boy said to his girlfriend, his mother, theatre employees and police that evening, and when he said it. O'Brien also asked the boy to answer questions about providing his DNA sample for Hudson Police and when he told the truth to police about his sexual contact with the girl in the theatre.

The Girl's Father

The girl's father testified about the evening's events from his point of view, which included text-message communication with his daughter and at least one phone conversation before he and his wife met her at the theatre and spoke with police.

He said that when he and his wife arrived, the girl's makeup was running down her face, she had been crying and seemed very shaken. The parents waited with the girl while police interviewed the boy. They then gave statements to a police officer together with their daughter.

Shortly after the family got home, they were called by police and encouraged to go to the Hudson Hospital to have the girl examined by a SART nurse. The parents stayed with the girl during the interview portion of the exam and left during the physical portion.

The girl's father also testified about when the girl first admitted that she and the boy had sexual contact in the theatre. The conversation happened in late December and was a very emotional event for the girl, he said.

SART Nurse, DNA Analyst and Police Officers

Courtney Honsa, a nurse with the St. Croix Valley Sexual Abuse Response Team, testified about her examination of the girl in the late hours of Aug. 16, into the early morning hours of Aug. 17. She detailed the exam process, the girl's demeanor and the evidence that was collected, including the girl's underwear. O'Brien asked Honsa about some direct quotations from the girl in the SART report and about the lack of any physical signs of a struggle.

Kelly Magyera, a DNA analyst with the state crime lab in Madison, was the next witness. She testified about the results from her DNA tests, which showed results consistent with the boyfriend and no DNA from Barnett. She also explained to the jury how DNA could be transferred from person to person. 

Hudson Police Detective Geoff Willems, then testified about his experience as the first officer on the scene at the theatre on Aug. 16. He was then a uniformed officer and has since been promoted to detective. His report from notes of the statements he took that night. He said he didn't have a voice recorder that evening. O'Brien questioned him about how he conducted the interviews with the parents present instead of alone with each teen. O'Brien also pointed out that Willems' report mentioned "photographs" while other reports referenced "security footage," surveillance video" and other terms that imply video instead of still photography.

Hudson Police Detective Jeff Knopps, who has been sitting alongside Collins during the entire trial, then took the stand. During his testimony, he showed some of the girl's clothing that she had been wearing on the night of Aug. 16, including underwear, a bra, an undershirt and a pair of shorts. One of the shirts she was wearing that night was never collected as evidence. Knopps also testified about what happened when he and other officers went to Barnett's home the next day to serve a search warrant and place him under arrest.

O'Brien's cross-examination of Knopps included questions about what was said at the Barnett residence before he was placed under arrest. At one point, O'Brien presented a transcription of a police recording of the event to jog Knopps memory about certain exchanges. O'Brien also questioned Knopps about the girl's second shirt and why it had never been collected as evidence. Knopps said he didn't know about it until he heard previous witnesses talk about it in court on Wednesday and Thursday. Knopps also could not account for text messages that had been collected as evidence from the girl's father's phone.

The Son and Wife

O'Brien began his defense by playing several minutes of surveillance video from the theatre's hallway cameras. The video showed the boy and girl talking for more than 10 minutes after leaving the auditorium. He then called three witnesses of his own: Barnett's son, Barnett's wife and Barnett himself.

Barnett's son walked through the court through the Aug. 16 timeline from his point of view, including when his father told him and his friend to wait for him in the lobby while he talked to other moviegoers who were doing some inappropriate things during the movie.

Testimony from Barnett's wife included the discussion about who would take the son to see the movie, what she did that evening at home, conversations she and Barnett had later that night and early the next morning. She also talked about her experience of when Barnett was questioned by police and arrested the following day.

Barnett Takes the Stand

When Barnett himself waived his Fifth Amendment right and testified on behalf of his own defense, he walked through the evening's events from the discussion he had with his wife about who should bring the boys to the theatre. He detailed parts of the friendly conversation he had with the theatre's ticket clerk, who was a former student of his. He recalled seeing someone familiar that he couldn't place at the time, who he later found out was the theatre's assistant manager and an acquaintance from his community.

During the movie, Barnett said he dozed off and couldn't be sure how long he was asleep. When he awoke, while reclined in the theatre's stadium seats, he could see the boy and girl heavily making out. Later he noticed them engaging in different sexual acts.

After the movie, he said he told the boys to wait for him outside the auditorium before approaching the teen couple. He said he confronted them about their activity by telling them that he had seen what they were doing. After getting no response he continued with statements like "What if someone had recorded it with their cell phone?" and "How would you feel if your parents saw it?"

Barnett's account of the confrontation portrayed a girl who initially denied the allegation of sexual contact with the boy, but eventually turned apologetic as they talked. He said that the girl followed him from one side of the auditorium to the other as they talked, and that he saw the boy near the auditorium entrance. He said he told the boy that he saw what he was doing with the girl and that it was inappropriate. He then left the auditorium and went looking for his son and his son's friend so they could leave.

Barnett said that in hindsight he wished he had brought the incident to the attention of theatre staff instead of trying to deal with it himself.

While giving testimony about the police coming to his home the next day, Barnett said he spent about 15 minutes talking with officers before they read him his rights and placed him under arrest.

During cross-examination, Collins called into question Barnett's training as a college professor preparing him for "classroom management." Collins also inquired about any additional annual training Barnett was required to take as a professor. Barnett denied that his job had such requirements other than what was in the university's faculty handbook.

Collins also had several questions about Barnett's account of how he and the girl got from one side of the auditorium to the other during their conversation. 

The defense rested at shortly after 4:10 p.m., and the jury was excused for the day. 

Still to Come

On Friday, the jury will hear closing statements from both sides and receive final instructions from Lundell before going into deliberation.