The counselor helped her prepare for being questioned without rehearsing a performance. Beatrice practiced saying "I don't remember" when she did not remember and "I disagree" when a question contained a premise she rejected. They discussed the way the body might react when the video was played, and Beatrice made a plan to ask for a pause if she needed one. She also chose a navy dress with tiny white daisies because it was comfortable and because she did not want to dress as an exhibit of suffering.
In the district attorney's office, Clark faced a different set of pressures. Public attention had made the case impossible to ignore, and several officials urged him to use the trial to demonstrate that the city took excessive force seriously. He resisted the invitation to turn the proceedings into a public relations campaign. His task was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what Stanton and Reed had done, not to answer every grievance the city had accumulated over decades.
He met with the medical expert who would explain the fracture and the likely mechanism of injury. Dr. Miriam Bell reviewed the emergency imaging, subsequent examinations, and the body's visible response in the recording. She explained that the evidence was consistent with significant force applied during the extraction and restraint, while acknowledging that a recording alone could not establish the exact moment each injury occurred. Clark appreciated the distinction, because precision mattered more than the temptation to describe every detail with absolute certainty.
A forensic video specialist explained the separate camera systems during a preparation meeting. The initial seconds of the body-camera audio had intermittent interference, and one camera lost a clear view when the officers moved around the vehicle. That did not make the entire recording unreliable, nor did it permit the state to invent missing images. The specialist prepared a synchronized display showing the available camera angles and marking portions where the view was obstructed, so the jury could understand both the evidence and its limitations.
Stanton's attorney, William Bradley, was thorough and experienced. He requested training materials, challenged the interpretation of several video frames, and argued that the jury should evaluate the perceived threat from the officers' position rather than with the benefit of later knowledge. Clark agreed with the general principle and rejected the way Bradley used it to excuse facts the officers could actually see. They argued over the admissibility of prior complaints, and Judge Wallace limited much of that evidence because the trial had to concern the charged conduct rather than inviting a verdict on Stanton's general reputation.
Reed had separate counsel, Michael O'Connor, appointed through his own arrangements rather than as part of Stanton's defense. O'Connor warned him that a joint defense only worked while the clients' interests genuinely aligned. Reed maintained his not guilty plea, but each meeting required him to repeat the account he had signed after the arrest. The more he repeated it, the more he could hear the parts that did not belong to his own memory.
One night Claire found him in the garage, sitting on an overturned paint bucket beside the bicycle their daughter had outgrown. He had watched the body-camera recording with his lawyer that afternoon, and the sight of Beatrice on the pavement had left him unable to make conversation at dinner. Claire asked whether the old woman had done anything to deserve what happened. Reed said no, then stared at the floor as though surprised by how easily the word had come out.