Share This Article
A couple already charged with locking a teenage boy naked in a bathroom for years now face additional counts including rape, with Jaclyn Barnett facing 40 new charges and bonds set at $1 million each for both defendants.
Barnett, 42, and Daniel Wright, 41, were arrested Thursday by Mansfield Police Department and transported to the Baxter County Detention Center early Friday morning after initially being booked in Sebastian County.
The new charges against Barnett include 10 counts of rape of a person under 14 years old and unable to consent, 10 counts of sexual indecency with a child, 10 counts of false imprisonment with risk of injury, and 10 counts of second-degree sexual assault.
Wright faces additional charges of first-degree endangering the welfare of a minor and first-degree false imprisonment with risk of injury.
The new charges stem from information uncovered during the investigation of the initial case, according to jail records. When booked, both defendants listed an address at a trailer park on North Division Street in Mansfield, a change from the Gassville address they had been using in court documents.
The couple had been free on $50,000 bond each on the original charges, with no conditions that would have prohibited them from relocating while awaiting trial on charges of torturing a child for more than a decade.
The couple still face 113 counts each from the original case, in which a 15-year-old boy was discovered in November 2024 locked in a bathroom with a ratchet strap securing the door from outside. Court documents indicate he was forced to sleep on a pallet and was only allowed to eat on school days. The abuse allegedly occurred over approximately 11 years, with the Arkansas Department of Human Services receiving and dismissing 29 abuse reports about the family during that time.
Wright and Barnett had guardianship of the child, who prosecutors describe as a biological family member of one of the defendants. The family had previously lived in Northwest Arkansas before moving to Baxter County, with abuse reports filed in both locations.
Despite calls from mandated reporters including teachers and school resource officers, all reports were closed as unsubstantiated by DHS.
The case prompted a legislative hearing in Little Rock last month where DHS officials faced intense questioning about the dismissed reports. Baxter County Prosecutor David Ethredge testified before the joint House and Senate State Agencies and Government Affairs Committee about the abuse.
“He was being malnourished, was not being fed. He was not being allowed to go to school at times. He was being restrained within the room that we have charged them with for substantial periods of time.”
“The best we can tell, the only place of relief this child had would have been when he went to school. It was away from his home situation.”
Ethredge also revealed this wasn’t his first encounter with DHS failures.
“In 2020, my office prosecuted two juvenile homicide cases within a week where both young offenders had previous DHS contact that didn’t result in intervention.”
Division of Children and Family Services Director Tiffany Wright admitted no employees had been disciplined.
“There has not been disciplinary action for staff.”
Wright also acknowledged the agency hadn’t searched its database to identify other children with similar patterns of unsubstantiated reports.
The couple’s trial on the original charges, initially scheduled for November 12-14, has been continued until January 12, 2026. Defense attorney James Hensley filed a motion November 3 stating “the parties agree that there is additional discovery to be completed before this matter can be heard before the court.” The prosecution did not object to the continuance, which waived speedy trial rights. A court order signed November 4 confirmed the continuance.
As the case moves forward, court filings reveal a contentious battle over how the victim will testify at trial. Prosecutors filed an October 17 motion requesting special accommodations for the teenager.
“That the layout of the current courtroom in Baxter County, Arkansas has a testifying witness in close proximity to and facing the defendant—within 8 feet or so—and the witnesses is terrified of the defendants(s).”
“Even with appropriate security in place, the location of officers could potentially be more prejudicial than allowing the minor witnesses to sit out of the direct path and view of the Defendant.”
The prosecutor noted the teenager’s condition.
“While the minor is now 16 he is socially awkward and developmentally delayed which the State attributes to the actions of the defendants over the past ten years.”
Hensley filed a sharp response on October 28.
“Defendant takes issue with calling the child a ‘victim.’ The Defendant is presumed innocent of all charges until proved otherwise. Such claim by the Prosecutor is offensive and denotes an attitude of entitlement.”
The defense filing questions the credibility of the teenager.
“Questionable Credibility — honesty and truthfulness of the alleged victim is in question.”
Hensley cited professional conduct standards in his criticism.
“A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence.”
The defense filing states:
“Upon information and belief, the child has a biological brain disorder which causes unsociable behavior. The Defendants have cared for the child for decades. No governmental agency has any founded claims against the Defendants.”
This assertion contradicts the documented 29 DHS reports filed over 11 years, though all were dismissed as unsubstantiated before the teen’s rescue by officers with the Mountain Home Police Department.
Hensley argued that accommodating the witness would violate his client’s constitutional rights.
“The Defendant is entitled to confront his accuser.”
He cited Arkansas Supreme Court precedent establishing that “the right of confrontation provides two types of protection for a criminal defendant; the right physically to face those who testify against him and the opportunity to conduct effective cross-examination.”
“Allowing the child a sterile environment will bolster the witness’ position, which limits the defense’s ability to fully enjoy the provisions of his/her constitutional rights.”
Hensley challenged the prosecution’s claims about the teenager’s condition.
“There has been no provision or testimony by any physician of any such reason for such violation save that of the prosecutor claiming the child is ‘socially awkward and developmentally delayed which the State attributes to the actions of the defendants over the last ten years.’ The prosecutor makes this self-serving claim without any medical proof or history.”
The defense attorney also accused prosecutors of misconduct.
“The Defendant has yet to be convicted of any crime, the Prosecutor continually violates the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8, and is trying to gain a superior position in this case since there appears to be no violation of law by the Defendants according to the Arkansas Department of Human Services, the public school system, law enforcement, or any medical provider. Such behavior should be denied.”
The defense has requested extensive discovery materials.
“The Arkansas Department of Human Services reportedly denies the Prosecutor access to internal files in this matter. No notice or provision has been delivered to the Defense.”
Hensley demanded “all documentation of each claim against the Defendants for the last 12 years including the reason for 100% ‘Unsubstantiated’ findings by the Arkansas Department of Human Services.”
The defense filing included a witness list indicating the scope of testimony expected at trial. According to the document, police officers and other state actors associated with the case will be called to testify, with the defense reserving the right to cross-examine any witness subpoenaed by the state.
The defense indicated it expects to call witnesses including teachers, friends, and family members who will testify about the alleged victim’s behavior and what the filing describes as “the alleged victim having a brain defect which causes him to struggle with relationships of his family, school, medical providers, and the public.”
The filing states the defense has yet to receive contact information and records from teachers, medical professionals who treated the child, and Arkansas Department of Human Services personnel. The defense is seeking all communications, information, and documentation from these agencies, including medical records, treatment protocols, medicines used, and the full medical workup on the child’s treatment and prognosis.
“The defense has not been provided with the following and again makes such request: Teachers and their contact information and CV for and expected testimony,” the filing states, along with requests for information from medical professionals and DHS personnel involved in the case over the past 12 years.
The defense anticipates testimony will last approximately four hours for all witnesses.
The defense filing also included what appears to be a veiled threat.
“The Defense notifies the Baxter County Prosecutor and his office that the Defense intends on using all private information written, oral, or recording from the Baxter County Prosecutor’s office and the Baxter County Prosecutor himself regarding any private or public meeting, interview, or other intervention against any governmental agency or personnel, and provide the contact information of each party.”
During the legislative hearing, Ethredge had praised the Mountain Home Police Department.
“I am grateful to the work they did. This would not have happened had they not done the work.”
The prosecutor also described the best interests of the case.
“That in the best interests of the minor witness, the alleged nature of the defendant, the confined space of the Baxter County Courtroom, and the security issues these concerns present, the State of Arkansas moves this Court to consider a different location in the Courtroom for the minor witnesses to testify.”
A November 17 court date has been set for proceedings on the new charges. Due to the nature of the case, most information including probable cause affidavits will remain sealed by the court. The couple last appeared in court October 20.
The teenager is now in foster care and receiving support from school district officials. The case has prompted calls for systemic reform in Arkansas’s child protection system, with the legislative committee voting to refer the matter to the Child Maltreatment Investigations Oversight Committee for deeper investigation into how the system failed to protect the child despite numerous warning signs over more than a decade.
