Nolan sat beside his attorney, wearing a dark suit instead of his uniform. Without the badge and belt, he looked smaller, though his expression remained guarded.
The prosecutor opened by explaining that the case was not about whether the substance in the pouch was illegal. Laboratory testing had already established that fact.
The issue was how the pouch came to be in Darius's jacket and whether Nolan had knowingly misrepresented the events that led to its discovery.
The prosecutor told the jury that the state would present the recordings, independent witness testimony, digital evidence, and the official report. Each piece, the prosecutor argued, would help establish the sequence of events.
Nolan's attorney responded that the state was asking the jury to infer intent from ambiguous movements and imperfect recordings. He emphasized that the body camera did not provide a perfect view of the officer's hand at every moment and argued that the witnesses could not see everything that happened.
The court reminded the jury that the burden remained on the prosecution to prove each charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
Elaine Porter testified first.
She described sitting near the fountain, noticing the officer approach Darius, and becoming concerned when the officer moved behind him. She explained that she had started recording only after the officer began shouting, so her video did not capture the entire encounter.
Under cross-examination, Nolan's attorney asked whether she could see exactly what was in the officer's hand when it entered the jacket.
“No,” Elaine answered.
“Then you cannot say with certainty what he placed inside the jacket, can you?”
“I can say I saw his hand go into the jacket before he announced that he had found the bag.”
“That was not my question.”
Elaine looked toward the jury.
“I can't tell you what was in his hand. I can tell you what I saw.”
Her answer was simple and precise. She did not claim more than her observations supported.
The young man who had witnessed part of the encounter gave similar testimony. He admitted that he had been standing farther away and had not seen the entire sequence. But he confirmed that Nolan reached into the jacket before displaying the pouch.
The digital examiner explained how the body-camera file had been authenticated. The original file had been preserved, its metadata examined, and its timing compared with the witness recording and dispatch logs.
The examiner acknowledged the limitations of the camera angle. It did not show every movement in perfect detail. But the recording established the order of the officer's approach, the movement behind Darius, the announcement of the suspected drugs, and the later struggle.
The prosecutor then displayed the recording for the jury.
The courtroom became silent.
On the screen, Nolan approached Darius beside the bench. The officer's voice sounded ordinary at first. Darius answered calmly. There was no visible attempt to flee, no obvious threat, and no sudden movement suggesting an attack.
Then Nolan stepped behind him.
His hand disappeared into the jacket.
A few seconds later, the officer pulled out the pouch and announced that he had found narcotics.
The video continued to the confrontation, where Darius repeatedly denied that the bag belonged to him and asked to see the body-camera footage.
Nolan's attorney argued that the sequence could be explained by a lawful search and that the camera's angle prevented the jury from determining exactly what happened.
But the prosecution returned to the central question: if Nolan had discovered the pouch through a legitimate search, why did his report describe the search as occurring after a suspicion of narcotics possession had been established, when the recording showed his hand entering the jacket before that suspicion was announced?
The prosecutor also asked why the report claimed Darius had initiated the physical confrontation when the recording showed Nolan grabbing his jacket before the struggle began.
Nolan testified in his own defense.
He said he had been concerned about suspicious behavior and believed he had the authority to investigate. He described the struggle as chaotic and insisted that he had not planted the drugs.
His attorney asked whether Nolan had ever intentionally placed evidence on a civilian.
“No,” Nolan replied.
“Did you knowingly submit a false report about Inspector Ellison?”
“No.”
“Did you act out of hostility toward him because of his position?”
“No.”
Under cross-examination, the prosecutor returned to the first movement.
“You testified that you were checking for a weapon. Did you tell Mr. Ellison that you believed he was armed?”
“I gave him commands.”
“Did you identify a specific reason to believe he was armed?”
“I was assessing the situation.”
“Did you find a weapon?”
“No.”
“Did he threaten you before you reached into the jacket?”
“No.”
“Did he attempt to strike you before you grabbed him?”
Nolan paused.
“I don't remember the exact moment.”
The prosecutor showed him the recording again.
“You wrote that Mr. Ellison resisted your search. But the recording shows you reaching into his jacket before you announced a search. You wrote that he initiated the physical confrontation. But the recording shows you taking hold of his jacket before the struggle. Which account should the jury believe?”