“Yes.”
“Mandatory retraining?”
“Yes.”
“And testifying favorably for the city helps you?”
Brennan looked at the jury.
“I’m not testifying for the city. I’m telling you what I saw.”
He described the pre-stop comment, the false marijuana claim, the disabled camera, and his growing realization that the encounter had no legitimate basis. He did not exaggerate. When he could not remember exact wording, he said so.
That made him more credible.
Sergeant Morrison followed.
Her testimony focused on what she observed when she arrived and how standard policing should have worked.
“You do not get probable cause from annoyance,” she said. “You do not get lawful authority from someone asking you why they’re being detained.”
The defense objected to the phrasing.
The judge sustained part of it and instructed the jury to rely on the law he would provide.
Morrison nodded and adjusted.
The prosecution then introduced dash audio and GPS mapping.
Jurors saw the cruiser leave its efficient patrol path, circle back, and travel toward Elmwood. They heard Hutchkins identify Imani before approaching her. They saw the body-camera system log manual deactivation.
Then came the official report.
Gonzalez projected three sentences onto a screen.
SUBJECT ATTEMPTED TO ACCESS RESIDENCE THROUGH SUSPICIOUS MEANS.
STRONG ODOR OF MARIJUANA EMANATING FROM VEHICLE.
SUBJECT BECAME PHYSICALLY COMBATIVE.
She replayed corresponding moments from the video.
Keys in hand.
No mention of marijuana until Imani refused a search.
No physical aggression.
The contrast was devastating because it was simple.
On day six, the court admitted a limited selection of Hutchkins’s prior communications, not every ugly message investigators found. The judge excluded material that risked turning the trial into a referendum on character rather than the charged conduct. What remained was directly relevant to intent: messages about the Richardson house, resentment toward the mayor’s family, and comments about “new people” in Riverside Heights.
The defense lost its strongest argument—that the stop had been a spontaneous judgment error.
Hutchkins testified on day seven against his attorney’s apparent preference.
He began with apology.
“I am ashamed of how I acted.”
Gonzalez listened from the prosecution table.
Sloan asked about stress. Hutchkins described understaffing, long shifts, hostility toward police, and his frustration with city reforms. He admitted he poured the drink and called it indefensible.
Then he tried to preserve the legality of the stop.
“I still believed something was wrong.”
That sentence opened the door.
On cross-examination, Gonzalez approached slowly.
“What crime did you believe Dr. Richardson was committing when you first stepped onto her property?”
“I didn’t know yet.”
“What specific fact suggested a crime?”
“She was—something felt off.”
“Her keys?”
“No.”
“Groceries?”