Chapter 14 - The Trial Begins
Marissa declined the final plea offer because it required admission to felony child neglect with aggravating factors she disputed.
She would admit fraud.
She would admit leaving the children.
She would not admit she knowingly placed them at substantial risk.
Trial.
The state combined child-neglect and witness-intimidation counts with certain property-fraud counts after court rulings allowed.
Some financial evidence was limited to avoid turning jury into accountants.
Good.
Opening statement:
“This case began with seventeen minutes.”
The prosecutor explained Marissa told a nine-year-old she would be gone seventeen minutes.
She stayed more than four hours.
She did that while trying to complete a property transaction she knew her husband had not authorized.
Defense:
“Bad judgment is not every crime the state alleges.”
Also true.
Then Dr. Webb.
Tessa’s dehydration mild.
Miles’s mild.
No lasting physical harm.
Defense emphasized.
Good.
Then child welfare.
Age.
Responsibilities.
Repeated pattern.
Locked pantry.
Formula.
Then Tessa’s notebook.
Dates.
Times.
No embellishment.
The defense asked:
“Could a nine-year-old be wrong about time?”
“Yes.”
Then phone timestamps corroborated.
Tuesday.
Wednesday.
Thursday.
Then Tessa testified through child-friendly procedures approved by court.
She was ten by then.
She said:
“Mom told me seventeen minutes.”
“Did she come back?”
“No.”
“What did you do?”
“Held Miles.”
“Why?”
“Mom said to.”
“Did you call Dad?”
“Later.”
“Why not earlier?”
“Mom said not to.”
Then the threat.
“She said Miles could go somewhere and I’d never see him.”
Defense:
“Did she say she would sell Miles?”
“No.”
Important.
“Did she say she would hurt him?”
“No.”
“Did she say she planned to abandon you forever?”
“No.”
Good.
Then:
“Did you have food?”
“Some.”
“Water?”
“Yes.”
“No one locked you in a room?”
“No.”
Again.
No sensational fiction.
Then redirect:
“Could you open the front door?”
“No. Alarm.”
“Could you reach the locked pantry?”
“No.”
“Could you call your father?”
“Yes.”
“Why didn’t you?”
“Because Mom told me I’d lose Miles.”
There.
Then Rhett.
Fraud.
Authority.
No.
Then Olivia Chen.
Title process.
No closing.
No sale.
No deed.
Then me.
I testified about the call.
The house.
My no.
I did not describe Marissa as evil.
Defense asked:
“You had let Tessa help with Miles before?”
“Yes.”
“For how long?”
“Minutes while an adult was home.”
“Could Marissa believe Tessa was capable?”
“Capable of helping is not responsible for an infant.”
Then:
“Was your house actually sold?”
“No.”
“Did you lose $615,000?”
“No.”
“Did Marissa receive sale proceeds?”
“No.”
Good.
Then:
“You are divorcing her?”
“Yes.”
“Are you angry?”
“Yes.”
“Could anger color memory?”
“Possibly.”
Then prosecutor:
“Did anger create the text telling Tessa not to call you?”
May you like
“No.”
That ended it.
