He rolled to the witness stand.
Swore the oath.
Answered questions.
No speeches.
No dramatic stare at Derek.
“What were you doing that afternoon?”
“Buying groceries.”
“Why were you stopped in the crosswalk?”
“I dropped a glass jar.”
“Did you intentionally obstruct the officer?”
“No.”
“Did you threaten him?”
“No.”
“Did you strike him?”
“No.”
“Did you resist physical contact?”
“I told him to take his hand off my wheelchair.”
“Why didn’t you identify yourself as retired FBI immediately?”
Harlan paused.
“Because I had no legal obligation to use professional history as protection from ordinary police contact.”
The prosecutor waited.
Harlan continued.
“I wanted to be treated according to what I was doing.”
“Not according to who I used to be.”
On cross-examination, defense counsel pressed him.
“You were consulting for the Justice Department regarding Officer Langford before this incident.”
“Yes.”
“So you already had an opinion about him.”
“I had concerns.”
“You wanted evidence against him.”
“I wanted accurate evidence.”
“When he approached you, did you see an opportunity?”
Harlan considered.
“Yes.”
A murmur moved through the gallery.
The defense attorney turned toward the jury.
“You allowed the confrontation to continue because you wanted to build a case.”
Harlan looked at him.
“I complied with lawful directions.”
“You challenged him.”
“I spoke.”
“You told him he was hostile.”
“He was.”
“You could have moved immediately.”
“Not safely through glass.”
“You could have identified yourself.”
“Yes.”
“But you didn’t.”
“No.”
“Because you wanted him to make a mistake.”
Harlan’s voice remained steady.
“I wanted him to make a choice.”
The attorney paused.
“What’s the difference?”
“A mistake is accidental.”
The courtroom went still.
Harlan continued.
“He repeatedly chose escalation after multiple opportunities to stop.”
The defense attorney looked at the judge.
No objection came.
Harlan continued only when asked.
“Did your federal status make the force unreasonable?”
“No.”
“What made it unreasonable?”
“I had committed no crime, presented no threat, and was attempting to comply with the practical problem in front of me.”
The prosecution later introduced Derek’s camera logs.
Internal records.
Selected prior incidents.
Not every complaint.
Only those tied to charged conduct.
Then Derek testified.
His attorneys had debated the decision for weeks.
He insisted.
Derek told the jury he had perceived Harlan as intentionally obstructing the road.
He said the wheelchair movement was an attempt to clear the traffic lane.
He denied intending to tip it.
He admitted his language had been unprofessional.
He called the encounter “a regrettable escalation.”
Then the prosecutor asked:
“Why did you accuse Mr. Whitaker of assaulting you?”
Derek paused.
“I believed he resisted.”
“That is not assault.”
“He moved aggressively.”
“From a motorized wheelchair?”
“He moved his arm.”
“Show the jury where.”
The video played.
Harlan’s right arm remained against the chair while Derek held the shirt.
Derek’s explanation weakened.
Then came the body camera.
“Why did you place it in standby?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Four minutes before leaving the cruiser?”
“I may have hit it accidentally.”
“Did you accidentally do the same thing in four other disputed stops?”
Objection.
The judge limited the question.
The prosecution returned to the charged incidents.
Derek became defensive.