A Hunt County jury acquitted Andrew Ryan Carlton in a child sex abuse trial that followed months of litigation over whether his defense attorney should remain on the case despite his wife’s expected role as a State witness.
The verdict form, filed May 8 in the 196th Judicial District Court, states: “We, the Jury, find the defendant, Andrew Ryan Carlton, ‘Not Guilty’ of the offense of Continuous Sexual Abuse of Young Child and any lesser-included offenses.”
Carlton had faced a charge in State of Texas v. Andrew Ryan Carlton, cause no. 35597CR, in the 196th Judicial District Court in Hunt County.
Keith Willeford, Carlton’s defense attorney, is also a candidate in the May 26 Republican primary runoff for judge of the 196th Judicial District Court. Hunt County’s official Republican runoff sample ballot lists Christina Perrone and Keith Willeford as the candidates for the seat.
The case drew unusual scrutiny after prosecutors moved to disqualify Willeford, arguing that his wife, Natalie Molkentine Willeford, was expected to testify for the State.
A courtroom observer who attended the May 5 proceedings told The Dallas Express that Natalie Willeford testified during the trial and that Keith Willeford personally cross-examined her.
The same observer said Willeford asked the court to close the courtroom to the public and later sought a gag order for the gallery. The observer said Judge J. Andrew Bench denied the requests.
Her testimony triggered the circumstance Bench had warned about months earlier, when he said the conflict would become actual if Mrs. Willeford testified.
Willeford declined to comment when contacted by The Dallas Express, citing the case. The Hunt County District Attorney’s Office did not respond to a request for comment before publication.
State Sought To Remove Willeford
The Hunt County District Attorney’s Office filed a motion on August 25, 2025, asking the court to disqualify Willeford from representing Carlton.
The State argued that Natalie Willeford was an expected witness and that her marriage to defense counsel created at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
According to the State’s motion, prosecutors learned while preparing for trial that the child’s former teacher may have relevant information because the child allegedly told the teacher she did not want to go to Carlton’s house.
Prosecutors said they initially knew the teacher only as Natalie Molkentine and had not yet connected her to Willeford.
In late July or early August 2025, they learned Molkentine was now Natalie Willeford, the wife of Carlton’s defense attorney.
The State then met with Mrs. Willeford, the child’s mother, Assistant District Attorney Jeff Kovach, and victim assistance coordinator Maria Ornelas to determine whether to call Mrs. Willeford as a witness.
In the State’s filing, prosecutors alleged that Mrs. Willeford asked during the meeting, “Isn’t this a conflict of interest?”
The State also alleged that Mrs. Willeford described the child as “a truthful child,” remembered the child saying she did not want to go to Carlton’s house, and said her memory was that the statement may have related to the grandmother rather than Carlton.
The State further alleged that the child’s mother felt Mrs. Willeford had “backed off of what she had earlier stated.”
Defense Said The State Was Trying To Remove Chosen Counsel
Willeford pushed back in court filings, arguing that his wife was not a material witness and that prosecutors were trying to interfere with Carlton’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice.
In his response, Willeford said Carlton was first indicted in February 2024 on an indecency-with-a-child charge in cause no. 34948CR and that Willeford had represented him since April 2024.
The State later secured a new indictment against Carlton on June 11, 2025, in cause no. 35597CR on the continuous-sexual-assault charge, according to the filing.
Willeford argued that Mrs. Willeford was “not a fact witness” and that the State was using her, at most, as an ancillary witness to force Carlton off his retained lawyer.
He also argued that the State’s conflict theory belonged to the jury because it involved weighing credibility and testimony.
The defense also challenged the State’s reference to a 2024 Attorney General matter involving spousal conflicts among attorneys. Willeford argued no Attorney General opinion existed because the request had been withdrawn.
At an August 29 hearing, Kovach acknowledged the issue.
“Doing my research on this case, I used AI. I got that opinion. Mr. Willeford pointed out to me that that opinion, I guess, was withdrawn. So it’s not an opinion, so I want to make that — note that for the record,” Kovach said, according to the hearing transcript.
Judge Found Conflict Would Become Actual If Wife Testified
Judge Bench held hearings on August 29 and September 10, 2025, before denying the State’s motion.
In its written findings, the court said prosecutors intended to call Natalie Molkentine Willeford as a witness. Judge Bench also identified her as Keith Willeford’s wife, noted that she had taught the alleged victim, and said she used the name Natalie Molkentine before she married Willeford.
Bench further found that Carlton understood and waived any potential or actual conflict.
The conclusions of law said Mrs. Willeford would be a material witness if she testified as prosecutors expected. They also identified a potential conflict between Willeford and Carlton and said her testimony would cause the conflict to “ripen into an actual conflict of interest.”
The judge nevertheless found that Carlton had “effectively, freely and validly” waived any potential or actual conflict. The court concluded that Carlton’s right to counsel of his choice outweighed the danger of unfair appearance, jury distraction, ineffective assistance, and due-process concerns under the circumstances.
At the September 10 hearing, Bench gave Carlton a lengthy warning about the possible consequences of keeping Willeford as counsel.
“Sir, you understand — and I will make a note for the record the Court believes that if Mr. Willeford’s wife is called to testify, it will be an actual conflict of interest. Not a potential conflict of interest, but an actual conflict of interest,” Bench said, according to the transcript.
The judge also warned Carlton that his attorney’s marriage to a potential State witness could affect cross-examination.
“If that happens, you run the risk that Mr. Willeford will sacrifice your interests in having conflict-free counsel and in a vigorous, unrestrained, and forceful defense on your behalf in order to serve his personal interests in not embarrassing his wife or, frankly, insinuating to a jury in public that she is a liar or that her memory is faulty,” Bench said.
Carlton still chose to keep Willeford.
State Took The Issue To Appeals Court
The State then sought mandamus relief from the Sixth Court of Appeals in Texarkana, asking the appellate court to force Judge Bench to disqualify Willeford.
The Sixth Court denied the petition on November 17, 2025.
In its memorandum opinion, the appellate court said Walker sought to compel the trial judge to disqualify Carlton’s counsel of choice because counsel “married a witness the State intends to call.”
The court held that because Carlton had been fully informed of the conflict and waived it, Judge Bench had discretion to deny the State’s motion.
The appellate court also said Mrs. Willeford was “not a significant witness to the State’s case since the record shows that she had no personal knowledge of the offense.”
The court concluded that the State had cited no case requiring disqualification under the facts of the case and denied the petition.
The State later asked the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for leave to file a mandamus petition after the Sixth Court’s ruling, according to a filing accepted December 30, 2025. The records reviewed by The Dallas Express did not include a ruling from the Court of Criminal Appeals on that request.
Trial Ends In Acquittal
The case went to trial in May. The jury acquitted Carlton after the trial court allowed Willeford to remain on the case, after the appeals court declined to force his removal, and after Natalie Willeford testified on May 5.
A courtroom observer who attended the proceedings told The Dallas Express that Keith Willeford personally cross-examined Natalie Willeford after she testified.
The acquittal closed the criminal case against Carlton. The conflict dispute now adds a new public-interest question to the May 26 judicial runoff for the 196th District Court.
