Chapter 10 - Patricia Goes to Trial
Patricia’s trial was smaller than Ryan’s case.
No dramatic conspiracy to steal a million-dollar house.
No charge that she caused the burns directly.
The prosecution’s theory was focused:
She knowingly joined Ryan’s plan to pressure me into signing the deed and loan papers.
She knew cameras were deliberately disabled.
She entered after Ryan said they were down.
She participated in the coercive confrontation.
After I was injured, she continued pressuring me instead of disengaging.
She took the towel away.
She ordered me to sign.
She tried to interfere with the hidden camera once she learned it contained evidence.
Charges included conspiracy/attempted coercion and attempted evidence tampering.
The prosecution had also considered accomplice liability for assault.
They did not ultimately pursue the most serious version because evidence that Patricia intended physical injury before Ryan shoved me was not strong enough.
I appreciated that.
Truth did not need upgrades.
At trial, the kitchen footage played.
I did not watch.
I waited outside until testimony.
Then I took the stand.
Patricia’s lawyer was careful.
“You agree my client never pushed you.”
“Yes.”
“She never struck you.”
“Yes.”
“She did not spill soup.”
“No.”
“She did not tell Ryan to shove you.”
“Not that I heard.”
Then:
“She did refuse you a towel.”
“Yes.”
“She was angry.”
“Yes.”
“She moved toward clock.”
“Yes.”
“You grabbed her ankle.”
“Yes.”
“To stop her.”
“Yes.”
No denial.
Then texts.
Cameras down. Come in.
Good.
Then she signs before call.
Don’t coddle her.
The defense said they showed financial pressure, not criminal agreement.
Maybe.
Then Patricia testified.
Risky.
She admitted the $95,000 loan.
“I was scared I would lose it.”
“Did that give you rights in Claire’s house?”
“No.”
“Why say house belonged to your son?”
“I believed because they were married and lived there, he had some claim.”
“Did you know title was Claire’s?”
“Yes.”
“Did you know lender needed Claire’s signature?”
“Yes.”
“Did you want her to sign?”
“Yes.”
“Did you know Ryan disabled cameras?”
She paused.
“Yes.”
“Why did that not concern you?”
“I thought Claire recorded every argument and used recordings to embarrass him.”
There was no evidence I had done that.
Then:
“Why take towel?”
Patricia cried for first time.
“I was angry.”
“Did you want her pain to make her sign?”
Silence.
“I don’t know.”
The prosecutor waited.
Then:
“Why did you say maybe now she’ll stop being selfish?”
“Because I was cruel.”
Good.
“Why run toward clock?”
“Because I knew what I had said and how it looked.”
“Did you intend to destroy recording?”
“I wanted camera off.”
“Why?”
“I panicked.”
Then verdict.
Guilty:
Conspiracy to commit coercion/attempt to obtain signature through improper pressure.
Attempted evidence tampering.
Acquitted:
One broader accomplice-assault count the prosecution had left as a lesser alternative? Let's say the jury acquitted her of aiding the assault itself because they were not convinced she shared Ryan’s intent when he shoved.
That nuance mattered.
Sentence:
Eighteen months effective custody.
Twenty-four months supervised probation afterward.
Restitution for her share of certain security/evidence costs, limited and offset against other recoveries.
She served about thirteen months with credits.
No five-year sentence for standing there.
Still real consequence.
Before sentencing she spoke.
“I wanted my money back.”
There.
“I told myself Claire was selfish because admitting Ryan’s business was failing meant admitting I had made a bad loan.”
Then:
“I believed being his mother meant I should help him get what he needed.”
She looked at me.
“I turned your no into something I thought we could overcome.”
Then:
“When you were burned, I still cared about the papers.”
Her voice cracked.
“That is the part I am most ashamed of.”
Then:
“I did not cause Ryan to shove you.”
True.
“I helped create a room where your refusal was treated as unacceptable.”
Also true.
She apologized.
I did not forgive.
Not then.
Then Ryan’s sentencing.
He had been in custody/strict bond.
The judge considered:
No prior criminal history.
Serious injury.
Pregnancy.
Planning to disable cameras.
Post-assault coercion.
Attempted evidence removal.
Guilty plea.
Acceptance.
Business pressure as context, not excuse.
Effective custodial sentence:
Five years two months.
Additional suspended time conditioned on supervision, batterer-intervention programming, no contact, restitution.
He would likely serve a little over four years depending lawful credits.
No $425,000 restitution because loan never funded.
Restitution covered:
Uninsured medical expenses.
Destroyed security equipment? Clock survived mostly.
Door? No door damage. In this story no.
Some counseling/other compensable losses if allowed.
Maybe around $14,800 documented.
Civil divorce claims separate.
Ryan looked into camera? I watched remotely.
He said:
“I shoved my wife because I thought my emergency mattered more than her answer.”
Then:
“I disabled cameras because I knew I was planning a confrontation I didn’t want recorded.”
Then:
“I did not intend to burn her.”
Pause.
“But after she was burned, I still tried to make her sign.”
That was the sentence.
“I cared about saving my business more than I cared about what I had just done to my wife and unborn daughter.”
No defense.
Then:
“I am sorry.”
I believed he understood words.
I did not know whether he had changed.
That would take years.
May you like
Meanwhile, the divorce still had to divide what we actually owned.
And the house Ryan had tried to secure with debt was going to remain the most emotionally charged asset in the case.
