Judge Dismisses Felony Eavesdropping Charge Against Hudson Woman

After nearly a year, a Hudson woman has been cleared of an intercepting wire/electronic communication charge stemming from a May 2, 2011, incident that took place at the St. Croix County Government Center.

A Hudson woman was cleared of felony eavesdropping charges in a St. Croix County court room Tuesday, after fighting the charge for nearly a year.

Patt A. Colten of Hudson was formally charged with intercepting wire/electronic communication, a Class H felony,, route: {:controller=>"articles", :action=>"show", :id=>"hudson-woman-charged-with-felony-in-alleged-eavesdropping-incident"} --> on Friday, Sept. 30, 2011, based on a confrontation at the , one of the four lawyers who have represented Colten over the 11-and-a-half-month period,

starr September 28, 2012 at 02:18 AM
Mr Foley, Did the Hudson Police department or the DA's Office ever do anything about having charges brought against the 2 teenagers who intentional lied and had Professor Barnett charged with a felony to cover-up their wrong-doing? If they didn't they should. This story is even worse, Your reporter Mr Roberts wrote an article back in Jan where Adkinson essentially admitted that both the witnesses lied because Moore and Speirs said she recorded them and gave it to the Judge and it was in the Court File. Adkinson said there was no recording, and he and all the witnesses said they had no idea if anyone recorded anything. They had to know that it was all a lie from the beginning. I hope that everyone who lied in both of these cases are charged with felony's. Why didn't the DA have the decency to vacate both of cases the second that they knew it was a lie. Does the County have a fund to reimburse the victims Barnett and Colten for all of the legal expenses that they incurred? If not they should make the liars reimburse them for every penny.
starr September 28, 2012 at 02:29 AM
Mr Foley , I just noticed that your story is different than Mr Roberts. His story indicated that nothing at all happened on May 2nd. Your story from Sept 18th states that Colten was involved in a confrontation on May 2nd that lead to her being charged with wiretap, What is that all about? Who confronted who with what on May 2nd?
Micheal Foley September 28, 2012 at 02:44 AM
I wouldn't know anything about charges against the teens. I covered Mr. Barnett's trial, and verdict, but any charges brought on juveniles aren't in the public record. I can't say for sure whether they were charged with anything. Time will tell if anyone is ever charged with perjury in connection with Colten's case.
Micheal Foley September 28, 2012 at 03:02 AM
The October 2011 story by me was written off of information from the criminal complaint. Jeff's story written in January was written off of information from the defense attorney. As you may know, the state and defense attorneys rarely agree when it comes to court cases, hence the differences in their statements.
starr September 28, 2012 at 05:27 AM
I was not asking about Oct 2011, but now that you mention it , are you saying that you never asked her to confirm or deny anything you quoted to her in your story? I asked you about the story you just wrote, and I would like an answer to the question in my last post. I reread Jeff's story, why do you want your readers to think he didn't get the story from the testimony. He was defiantly there. Where you in any of the hearings for either Barnett or Colten? You also completely ignored my questions about the cop, and what about financial compensation for the victims here. Did you ask Barnett or Colten what it cost them to be falsely accused? Does Hudson have an investigative reporter?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »