Young Jenkins took the witness stand after lunch.
She stated her name, position, and current responsibilities.
Roth immediately asked about her recusal from decisions concerning her own complaint.
She explained when she had reported the conflict and what steps had been taken to separate her testimony from the oversight investigation.
“Did you travel to Crestwood expecting Chief Sterling to stop you?” Roth asked.
“No.”
“Did you identify your federal position during the stop?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
Young looked toward the judge.
“I had complied with the request for identification, and my occupation was not relevant to the alleged traffic offense.”
Roth asked her to describe the stop.
Young repeated the chief’s words without imitating his voice.
She described the rain, the search, and the forty-five minutes beside the road.
She explained that no citation was issued and no reason for the search was provided to her.
“Were you frightened?”
“Yes.”
“Did your position prevent that fear?”
“No.”
Kessler approached for cross-examination.
He asked whether she had legal training.
She said she did.
He suggested that her answers at the roadside were designed to irritate the chief.
Young replied that she had answered directly and requested a lawful explanation.
“You knew you could file a complaint afterward,” he said.
“I hoped I would not need to.”
“You were aware that Chief Sterling might lose his position if your complaint succeeded?”
“My complaint does not determine his employment.”
“You have considerable authority as a federal director, don’t you?”
“Within the boundaries of my office, yes.”
“Could you have made one phone call and brought this department to its knees?”
Roth objected to the argumentative characterization.
The judge sustained the objection.
Young waited while Kessler reformulated.
“Have you used your authority to direct this investigation?”
“No.”
“Then what exactly do you want from this court?”
Young paused.
“That question belongs to counsel regarding the relief requested,” she said.
“As a witness, I want the court to understand what happened on Route 9.”
Kessler returned to his table.
Sterling was staring at Young as though her calmness were a personal insult.
The judge asked one question of her own.
“Director Jenkins, would your account of the stop be different if you held no federal position?”
“The facts would be the same, Your Honor,” Young replied.
“The practical consequences might have been far harder for me to challenge.”
Judge Whitaker thanked her.
Young stepped down and returned to the audience without looking toward Sterling.
Kessler called Sterling to the stand despite the obvious risks.
The chief insisted that his officers faced dangerous conditions on Route 9 and deserved freedom to make quick decisions.
He described late-night crashes and the difficulty of finding funding for traffic patrols.
Several spectators nodded because those dangers were real.
Roth did not dispute them.
He asked Sterling whether the city had authorized officers to tow vehicles merely to improve program statistics.
“Of course not,” Sterling answered.
“Then why did you approve an impound reported from a private parking lot?”
“The officer made a safety judgment.”
“Was the vehicle obstructing traffic?”
“Not according to that summary.”
“Was its owner present?”
“Apparently.”
“Had the owner arranged a replacement tire?”
“That appears to be the case.”
Roth paused.
“What danger required impounding that vehicle?”
Sterling stared at the photograph on the monitor.
“I’d have to review the circumstances.”
“You approved the intervention three times.”
Roth displayed the original report, the amended report, and a reimbursement certification bearing Sterling’s electronic approval.
“Did you review the circumstances when you certified payment?”
The chief shifted in his chair.
“I relied on my staff.”
“And when your finance coordinator asked for those circumstances?”
“I told her to let the police do their jobs.”
Roth took one step back.
“Did you ever investigate why she questioned the charge?”
“No.”
“Did you order anyone to investigate?”
“No.”
Roth moved to the Route 9 stop.
He asked the chief what traffic offense Young had committed.
Sterling said he believed her rental sedan had drifted near the shoulder.
Roth showed him the contemporaneous dispatch entry.
The entry described a vehicle that seemed out of place.
It said nothing about drifting.
“Why did you leave out the lane violation?” Roth asked.
“I didn’t write every detail into dispatch.”
“Why didn’t you issue a warning?”
“I used discretion.”
“Why did you search her luggage?”
“I was concerned about officer safety.”
“What did the luggage contain that threatened you?”
Sterling looked toward Kessler.
His attorney remained seated.
“I couldn’t know before I checked,” Sterling said.
Roth did not argue with him.
He asked the final question softly.
“Was there anything about that driver, apart from her identity and your dislike of her answers, that justified what you did?”
Sterling gripped the edge of the witness box.
“I acted in good faith.”
The answer did not identify a single fact.
When he stepped down, the courtroom remained quiet.
