https://wtaw.com/bryan-police-arrests-follow-stabbings-at-neal-park-and-jane-long-school/

He's been in jail since May 19th and hasn't been indicted yet, which is ridiculous, since he only has one charge, and it doesn't seem like that complex of a case. His bond is currently $30,000 and if he's not indicted within ninety days of his arrest, it will be legally required to be reduced. My dad knows him (he's not friends with him, but he knows him)

Wait, so he's the victim now?

He's not the victim (unless he was actually acting in self-defense like he claimed), but it's dumb that it's taking so long for him to be indicted.

It might be a win for him if the jail he's in now is better than the jail he's going to be in.

Maybe they are using the January 6th philosophy of keeping him in jail without an indictment

He has a payday coming if he gets a halfway decent attorney. Our tax dollars at work.

Let's wait until the 90 days that the Texas Legislature has given prosecutors to indict before we get our panties in a wad.
It doesn't matter to me that he has been in jail on felony charges. What bothers me, if he is not indicted within the 90 day period, is that a dangerous person will be released to the detriment of the community.

It's weird that his bond is $30,000, since his brother cut him with a knife two years ago and his bond was $18,000, even though he had seven prior assault convictions, and this guy has one prior assault conviction.

lethalninja said:

---

It's weird that his bond is $30,000, since his brother cut him with a knife two years ago and his bond was $18,000, even though he had seven prior assault convictions, and this guy has one prior assault conviction.

---

Where do you find all this info?

In the jail and court records. Also, my dad knows him and his brother.

Must be a J6 tourist.

90 days is a long time.

Perhaps he was immediately charged with one or more misdemeanors, and bail was set for those but there is an indictment coming on top.

The way it is written suggests that the person is incarcerated pending trial, not pending charge.

Art. 17.151. RELEASE BECAUSE OF DELAY.

Sec. 1. A defendant who is detained in jail pending trial of an accusation against him must be released either on personal bond or by reducing the amount of bail required, if the state is not ready for trial of the criminal action for which he is being detained within:

(1) 90 days from the commencement of his detention if he is accused of a felony;

He's charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (punishable by up to twenty years) and there's no other charges.

I think he is currently accused, not charged, right? Charging requires a charging instrument, which for a felony is an indictment. But I'll admit I don't understand how bail was set without a charge, since the statute clearly requires it.

Art. 17.023. AUTHORITY TO RELEASE ON BAIL IN CERTAIN CASES. (a) This article applies only to a defendant *charged with* an offense that is...

He was arrested, but he hasn't been officially indicted yet. When I said charged, I meant it in the general sense, like if someone was arrested, the news would say they've been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

If the prosecutor doesn't have enough evidence to get an indictment, then he doesn't have enough evidence to get a conviction. Especially trying to prove a self defense claim is false beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's been twelve weeks (84 days) now and still no indictment.

I spoke too soon. He was finally indicted today.

lethalninja said:

---

I spoke too soon. He was finally indicted today.

---

The grand jury moved quickly….