“Yes.”
“How?”
“Sledgehammer to windshield and exterior damage.”
The prosecutor displayed video.
First hit.
Courtroom reacted despite everyone having seen online.
Mercer looked down.
“Approximately repair cost?”
Defense objected relevance/prejudice.
Judge allowed limited.
Nia answered:
“Final repair and restoration costs were $417,638.82.”
Jurors blinked.
That number could inflame.
Prosecutor moved on.
“When did you identify yourself as FBI?”
“I did not verbally identify before Deputy Cross saw credential.”
“Why?”
“I was off duty and did not believe federal employment should affect lawful traffic stop.”
“What happened after badge seen?”
“Mercer stopped damaging vehicle.”
Defense cross.
“Agent Grant, you knew federal team was listening?”
“Yes.”
“You knew backup coming?”
“I believed so.”
“And you allowed Sergeant Mercer to continue?”
“I did not authorize his actions.”
“You could have shown badge.”
“Yes.”
“But didn’t.”
“Yes.”
“Why?”
“I had already ordered him to stop.”
“Not my question.”
“Because I did not believe I should need federal status to prevent unlawful destruction.”
Defense attorney paced.
“Or because you wanted evidence for an investigation?”
“No.”
“You were aware FBI had preliminary inquiry into Cedar.”
“Yes.”
“You knew Mercer’s name?”
“Yes.”
The jury reacted.
There was defense theory.
“You recognized him?”
“Not immediately.”
“But once name displayed?”
“Yes.”
“And still did not disclose FBI.”
“Correct.”
“You wanted him to incriminate himself.”
“No.”
“I wanted him to follow law.”
“You pressed federal duress alert.”
“After he grabbed me and attempted to take phone.”
“Isn’t that initiating federal operation?”
“No.”
“It is asking for assistance.”
“You knew everything after would be recorded.”
“Yes.”
“Yet you kept questioning.”
“I asked legal basis.”
“You told him put hammer down.”
“Yes.”
“You challenged authority.”
“I exercised rights.”
The attorney changed.
“Three-point-two-million-dollar car?”
“Yes.”
“Unusual for FBI salary?”
“Yes.”
“Your father left it?”
“Yes.”
“Your father wealthy?”
“Comfortable.”
“Millionaire?”
“At death.”
“Could Sergeant Mercer reasonably find ownership unusual?”
“Unusual is not probable cause.”
The prosecutor smiled faintly.
Defense attorney did not.
He tried:
“Did you provide bill of sale?”
“Registration.”
“Bill?”
“Not roadside.”
“So you could not prove source of funds.”
“I was not required to prove source of funds to avoid having windshield smashed.”
Objection to argumentative.
Sustained? Maybe judge says answer stands? Let's keep.
The defense’s core argument:
Mercer believed high-value vehicle potentially cloned/stolen; poor judgment but not criminal intent.
Danner relationship legitimate.
Payments for off-duty security.
Texts crude jokes.
Fire unrelated.
Then prosecutors introduced messages.