Chick‑fil‑A surveillance and police body‑camera video shown to jury; footage depicts black sedan and victim on hood

Prosecutors played footage from Chick‑fil‑A surveillance and officers’ body‑worn cameras for the jury, showing a black sedan enter the restaurant's parking lot and a person on the vehicle's hood before the car left the scene.

Sergeant Robert Mount testified that he and other officers reviewed a manager’s laptop video at the scene. “From what we could see, you could see a black car enter the parking lot of the Chick fil A. It appeared the complainant was on the hood of the car, and then the, the front passenger exits the vehicle,” Mount said while describing the surveillance.

Chick‑fil‑A operator Dan Akin said he reviewed his store’s recordings and turned a disc to the police. “It contains various, videos from that day, that were deemed pertinent,” Akin testified when identifying the disc the restaurant produced to investigators.

The state used multiple camera angles and body‑worn footage to show scene arrival, the location of evidence and investigators' actions. Officers published stills and played the recordings in court; defense counsel objected at times to the length and repetitiveness of the displays and questioned whether the prosecutor’s viewing software reoriented the fisheye images.

Judge Stephanie Boyd allowed publication after the state authenticated the recordings and the owner confirmed he provided the files to police. The court also admitted several video exhibits without objection after the state proffered the owner as a witness who had prepared and delivered the recordings.

Why it matters: the restaurant surveillance is central to the state's timeline and to identifying the vehicle and what occurred moments before the victim fell from a vehicle. Defense lawyers probed image quality and argued footage was distorted and at times unclear; officers acknowledged some views were distorted but said the clips were sufficient to show a black four‑door sedan and the sequence of events.

Technical note: the footage came from the restaurant’s DVR and cloud system; the owner demonstrated he had the DVR access on his laptop and identified the disc that contains the surveillance files.

Courtroom dispute: defense counsel objected to manipulating the view for clearer orientation; the judge allowed reorientation for viewing but the defense asked the record to show the prosecutor used menu operations in the playback program to change the view.

The jury will see the footage again as additional witnesses and exhibits are offered during the prosecution's case.