The attorney lifted the county release form and pointed out that the Ducati had been returned without damage and that all towing fees had been waived. "What more did you want?" he asked.
"An accurate record of what happened," Maya said. "And a process that doesn't require another owner to be a federal judge, have cameras, or know someone who can afford to challenge the county."
"You continued even after your property was returned?"
"Yes. The documents showed that people had lost property and income long before I arrived. My motorcycle wasn't the beginning of their dispute. It was evidence that the process was still operating."
The attorney tried to cast her participation as an effort to exert judicial influence over local law enforcement. Maya described her recusal, the transfer of relevant matters, and the role of independent federal investigators. She had supplied records as a witness, not issued orders as a judge. When asked whether she expected the jury to trust her because of her title, she shook her head. "I expect them to compare my testimony with the evidence," she said. "That's all."
Bennett testified the following day. He wore a plain dark jacket instead of a uniform, and he seemed uncomfortable under the attention of both the courtroom and the people whose property he had helped take. He admitted seeing valid documents, failing to object to the handcuffs, telephoning Maya later, sending a photograph of the list, and signing a statement that undermined his earlier account. No one described him as heroic. The prosecutor asked why he had withdrawn the information.
"I was afraid of losing my job and my mother's coverage," he said.
"Did that fear make your first account untrue?"
"No."
"Why did you cooperate again?"
"My mother told me that keeping her comfortable wasn't a reason to help other people lose what belonged to them. I knew she was right."
On cross-examination he was asked whether he had lied in writing and whether a witness who changed his account could ever be trusted. Bennett answered yes to the first question and admitted that the second was for the jury to decide. "I don't expect anyone to trust me because I say I'm sorry," he added. "I expect them to compare what I say with the records.
The list existed. I saw it. I signed a statement that tried to make it sound harmless. The records show what it was used for."
Prosecutors displayed three versions of the same premium vehicle recovery list: the photograph Bennett had sent, the data recovered from Southern Civic Systems, and a printed copy found at Bellamy. The headings and entries matched. Location records placed towing trucks on the road before stops had officially begun, while electronic access logs showed who had opened or modified the underlying files. The defense highlighted differences in timestamps caused by the systems' settings, but analysts explained and reconciled them with independent records. By the end of the testimony the case no longer required jurors to choose between Bennett's first and second statements without other evidence.