Adrien formally recused himself from any matter related to the investigation that could otherwise come before him. He had been the victim of the detention and would be a witness, not the judge of his own case. He would not choose the prosecutors, instruct investigators how to frame charges, or influence the sentence by calling upon the respect attached to his office. The case had to stand on evidence that would still matter if the man at the diner had been Garrett Sloan or somebody else whose name appeared in the ledger.
That decision was not difficult in principle. It was difficult when he heard a defense lawyer suggest he had provoked the sheriff by asking unnecessary questions, or when a television commentator wondered why a judge had not simply shown his credentials immediately. Adrien wanted to answer every careless remark. Instead, he saved his account for sworn testimony and allowed the process to proceed. He had learned how quickly public attention could turn a witness into a symbol, and he did not want the symbol to swallow the facts.
The community's response was mixed. Some residents welcomed the federal inquiry and attended public meetings with copies of their own property records. Others complained that outsiders were humiliating a county that had always looked after its own. Several said Hask had helped their families and therefore could not be as cruel as the allegations suggested. Adrien understood that a man could be generous to some neighbors and abuse others; the contradiction was not evidence that either account had to be false.
Estelle listened to those arguments across her counter. When someone claimed that Hask had only been doing his job, she asked what job required him to shove a table into a seated customer. When another person argued that Adrien had been disrespectful, she pointed out that his questions were preserved on video. She did not force anyone to agree with her. She simply stopped pretending all accounts carried equal weight when one had been recorded from beginning to end.
Garrett avoided interviews, though his case appeared in several news reports after the indictment. He wanted his truck and his money, not strangers debating whether he deserved sympathy. Lena reminded him that his testimony might help people who had given up because they believed no one could challenge the sheriff. Garrett agreed, but he resented needing to make his family's hardship public to establish that something had been wrong. His resentment did not make him less willing to testify when asked.
The trial date moved twice while attorneys argued over records, witnesses, and the proper scope of financial evidence. Some motions were granted, others denied, and the judge presiding over the case explained that accusations of widespread misconduct did not excuse the government from proving the charges actually brought. Prosecutors narrowed certain allegations and clarified others, sometimes disappointing people who wanted every wrong placed in a single indictment. Camille reminded victims that the slow process was not proof nothing was happening. Then she made herself listen when they replied that it felt that way.