Jump to content

Von Miller faces arrest in domestic violence case in Dallas


ArdmoreRyno

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Mango said:


FWIW #1- I spoke to a friend in the DA’s office today and basically simplified it to. “If you have a warrant and you’re released on bail you have a charge. If prosecution wants to go sit in front of a judge and trial is a different story”.

 

FWIW #2 - I jumped into a legal subreddit to ask this question and somebody responded that in Texas penal procedure authorizes bail in two situations.

- Someone is charged with a crime

- Someone who was arrested without a warrant.


Von had a warrant, was not arrested at the scene of the crime. So a charge would need to be present. 
 

I the league is purposely muddling the situation so they don’t have to act. If the Bills do have an out in his contract like some have rumored, voiding $17M will be a historical move and likely trigger further litigation for the league. Add in it being for a first ballot HOF’er, and it is beneficial for the league to be intentionally pedantic. 

 

Thank you very much for your research and for sharing this.

 

It does go against what's said on a number of other legal sites.  On the other hand, many of them are not specific to Texas.  This document is:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.15.htm
You might notice the description of a warrant of arrest does not mention charges being filed - simply that it must name the offense of which the person is accused, and that further down there is a statement "IF charges are filed" which implies that a warrant may be issued without charges and the charges are separate

 

Further down it says "The magistrate shall allow the person arrested reasonable time and opportunity to consult counsel and shall, after determining whether the person is currently on bail for a separate criminal offense and whether the bail decision is subject to Article 17.027, admit the person arrested to bail if allowed by law."

 

Now it doesn't say that the law only allows the person arrested to bail if they have been charged.  It would go against common sense that an arrested/not charged person could not obtain bail, while an arrested/charged person could obtain bale - but, to paraphrase what I said to Muppy, "these are legal proceedings.  I'm expecting them to make sense.  That's my mistake.  That's where I'm going wrong."

 

So I'm left unclear, based on the above Texas Legal Statutes site, whether your DA friend and legal subreddit advice are correct here 🤷‍♂️

I've been actually hoping to draw out one of our site lawyers/jurists to weigh in since it's well known the best way to get correct info on the Interweb is to post wrong info, but so far No Joy.

 

You're certainly not wrong in that it is in the league's interest to obfuscate here

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Thank you very much for your research and for sharing this.

 

It does go against what's said on a number of other legal sites.  On the other hand, many of them are not specific to Texas.  This document is:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.15.htm
You might notice the description of a warrant of arrest does not mention charges being filed - simply that it must name the offense of which the person is accused, and that further down there is a statement "IF charges are filed" which implies that a warrant may be issued without charges and the charges are separate

 

Further down it says "The magistrate shall allow the person arrested reasonable time and opportunity to consult counsel and shall, after determining whether the person is currently on bail for a separate criminal offense and whether the bail decision is subject to Article 17.027, admit the person arrested to bail if allowed by law."

 

Now it doesn't say that the law only allows the person arrested to bail if they have been charged.  It would go against common sense that an arrested/not charged person could not obtain bail, while an arrested/charged person could obtain bale - but, to paraphrase what I said to Muppy, "these are legal proceedings.  I'm expecting them to make sense.  That's my mistake.  That's where I'm going wrong."

 

So I'm left unclear, based on the above Texas Legal Statutes site, whether your DA friend and legal subreddit advice are correct here 🤷‍♂️

I've been actually hoping to draw out one of our site lawyers/jurists to weigh in since it's well known the best way to get correct info on the Interweb is to post wrong info, but so far No Joy.

 

You're certainly not wrong in that it is in the league's interest to obfuscate here

 

 

I looked at the link you posted, including the "Requisites of a Warrant" section.  It says as follows:  "[The warrant] must state that the person is accused of some offense against the laws of the State, naming the offense."  In this instance "accused of some offense" is most certainly synonymous with "charged with a crime".  I don't believe there is any meaningful distinction between being "accused" by the state and "charged".  Since an arrest warrant was issued for Miller, that warrant had to list the crime he was accused of, which we understand was a third degree felony assault.  He was taken into custody and released on bail.  I don't know how anyone could contend that he has not been formally charged with a crime.  Doesn't mean he'll stand trial or be indicted, or whatever, but I don't think there's any question that he's been "charged".     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Thank you very much for your research and for sharing this.

 

It does go against what's said on a number of other legal sites.  On the other hand, many of them are not specific to Texas.  This document is:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.15.htm
You might notice the description of a warrant of arrest does not mention charges being filed - simply that it must name the offense of which the person is accused, and that further down there is a statement "IF charges are filed" which implies that a warrant may be issued without charges and the charges are separate

 

Further down it says "The magistrate shall allow the person arrested reasonable time and opportunity to consult counsel and shall, after determining whether the person is currently on bail for a separate criminal offense and whether the bail decision is subject to Article 17.027, admit the person arrested to bail if allowed by law."

 

Now it doesn't say that the law only allows the person arrested to bail if they have been charged.  It would go against common sense that an arrested/not charged person could not obtain bail, while an arrested/charged person could obtain bale - but, to paraphrase what I said to Muppy, "these are legal proceedings.  I'm expecting them to make sense.  That's my mistake.  That's where I'm going wrong."

 

So I'm left unclear, based on the above Texas Legal Statutes site, whether your DA friend and legal subreddit advice are correct here 🤷‍♂️

I've been actually hoping to draw out one of our site lawyers/jurists to weigh in since it's well known the best way to get correct info on the Interweb is to post wrong info, but so far No Joy.

 

You're certainly not wrong in that it is in the league's interest to obfuscate here

 

 

 

Yes you can be arrested without being charged. You seem to be doubling down on arrest v charges and leaving out bail. 

 

The argument for whether or not Von has been charged is being argued by the only people it matters to, the leagues attorneys. Which is sort of what my friend at the DA’s office was getting at. 
 

If the league wanted, Vons arrest has enough teeth to elicit a suspension. Full stop. 
 

But you keep arguing that people need to understand the difference. And they don’t.
 

If this were your neighbor on your left you wouldn’t go to the neighbor on your right with “well no; check out this link, Joe hasn’t officially been charged even though the police were here, an arrest warrant was issued, and he posted bail. So why don’t we pop over for his Memorial Day BBQ”. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mango said:

Yes you can be arrested without being charged. You seem to be doubling down on arrest v charges and leaving out bail.

 

Um.  Two of the four paragraphs in my post were about bail.

 

"  "Further down it says "The magistrate shall allow the person arrested reasonable time and opportunity to consult counsel and shall, after determining whether the person is currently on bail for a separate criminal offense and whether the bail decision is subject to Article 17.027, admit the person arrested to bail if allowed by law."

 

Now it doesn't say that the law only allows the person arrested to bail if they have been charged.  It would go against common sense that an arrested/not charged person could not obtain bail, while an arrested/charged person could obtain bale - but, to paraphrase what I said to Muppy, "these are legal proceedings.  I'm expecting them to make sense.  That's my mistake.  That's where I'm going wrong."  "

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Um.  Two of the four paragraphs in my post were about bail.

 

"  "Further down it says "The magistrate shall allow the person arrested reasonable time and opportunity to consult counsel and shall, after determining whether the person is currently on bail for a separate criminal offense and whether the bail decision is subject to Article 17.027, admit the person arrested to bail if allowed by law."

 

Now it doesn't say that the law only allows the person arrested to bail if they have been charged.  It would go against common sense that an arrested/not charged person could not obtain bail, while an arrested/charged person could obtain bale - but, to paraphrase what I said to Muppy, "these are legal proceedings.  I'm expecting them to make sense.  That's my mistake.  That's where I'm going wrong."  "

 

 

 


A magistrate is a judge, so start there. Von saw a judge. 

 

Yes, you can be arrested without a charge. I believe I addressed that in my post. Bail is allowed to be set in two instances, 1. Arrested with a warrant. 2. Arrested at the scene of a crime without a warrant. Von had a warrant. Then saw a judge who set bail.

 

It is so odd that you are so hell bent on making sure everybody understands whatever pedantics that the league is trying to sell to prevent outrage and prevent their own further litigation with Von. 
 

 

Edited by Mango
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Um.  Two of the four paragraphs in my post were about bail.

 

"  "Further down it says "The magistrate shall allow the person arrested reasonable time and opportunity to consult counsel and shall, after determining whether the person is currently on bail for a separate criminal offense and whether the bail decision is subject to Article 17.027, admit the person arrested to bail if allowed by law."

 

Now it doesn't say that the law only allows the person arrested to bail if they have been charged.  It would go against common sense that an arrested/not charged person could not obtain bail, while an arrested/charged person could obtain bale - but, to paraphrase what I said to Muppy, "these are legal proceedings.  I'm expecting them to make sense.  That's my mistake.  That's where I'm going wrong."  "

 

 

 

So I obviously don't know how it works, but my issue when I heard he posted bail and they were saying he wasn't charged is that what was the bail for? What are you paying bail to be released for if you are not charged with a crime? Like that doesn't make any sense to me. Like if he hadn't posted bail what would he be sitting in jail for?

Edited by Warcodered
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

So I obviously don't know how it works, but my issue when I heard he posted bail and they were saying he wasn't charged is that what was the bail for? What are you paying bail to be released for if you are not charged with a crime? Like that doesn't make any sense to me. Like if he hadn't posted bail what would he be sitting in jail for?

Correct

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mannc said:

Admittedly, criminal law is not my specialty, but I have no idea how one can be arrested, taken into custody, and forced to post bond without actually being charged with a crime.   

 

They can be depending on the state, but I also find that to be some whacky bull crap.  Make someone pay or sit in jail without even a pending charge.  Not sure what the legal way is in Dallas.

Edited by Scott7975
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Warcodered said:

So I obviously don't know how it works, but my issue when I heard he posted bail and they were saying he wasn't charged is that what was the bail for? What are you paying bail to be released for if you are not charged with a crime? Like that doesn't make any sense to me. Like if he hadn't posted bail what would he be sitting in jail for?


Per some internet attorney bail can be required  in two situations:

- When somebody is charged with a crime

- Somebody is arrested without a warrant.

 

Von had a warrant. So he would fall into option 1.
 

In general when one is arrested without a warrant it is at the scene of a crime. Like if Von was at the home after the 911 call. Or if you got pulled over going 100 mph down the 290.

 

I’ve seen the line Beck posted and read it a number of times the last week or so. It does not answer the question asked. 
 

The league certainly has enough teeth to suspend Von. They are being purposefully pedantic for their own benefit. Some posters are defending it. 

11 hours ago, Bills!Win! said:

Of course, we’re going to win the Super Bowl with Von and everyone will say we have an asterisk* and we will have to win a 2nd one to show that we are legit

 

very Billsy


I would be thrilled if the Bills made the SB and Von was put on the exempt list early in the new year, missing his 3rd ring. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of hair-splitting going on here. 

 

Yes, he's charged with a crime - a felony. That means the judge, DA and police figured there was enough evidence to issue a warrant for his arrest. He was arrested and posted bail.

 

Yes, he's facing charges. But the extent of that is that right now the judge, DA and police have gone as far as they can. If they want to proceed with a criminal trial, in Texas, just like in many other states, the DA must first secure a grand jury indictment. Another phrase for grand jury indictment is "formal charge."

 

Miller has been charged and arrested. He has not been formally charged to the point where he could be put on trial for the crime. Media reports, of course, don't have the time, space nor the inclination to make these kinds of distinctions in their breaking news stories. It's just easier (and not wrong, but not entirely forthcoming either) to say "facing charges."

 

I suspect if a grand jury were to hand down an indictment (formal charges), Miller would be suspended by the league immediately.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...