- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 1,190,292
- Reaction score
- 59
You must be registered for see images
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND - SEPTEMBER 22: Terrion Arnold #6 of the Detroit Lions looks on during an NFL football game against the Baltimore Ravens at M&T Bank Stadium on September 22, 2025 in Baltimore, Maryland. (Photo by Michael Owens/Getty Images) | Getty Images
On Monday afternoon, the state was denied its motion to hold Terrion Arnold without bond on a case with eight felony charges.
Bond has been set at $1 million — $150,ooo per kidnapping count (one of the four is conspiracy) and $100,000 per armed robbery count (one of the four is conspiracy). The terms of Arnold’s bond are as follows:
- No contact with other co-defendants or witnesses involved in the alleged crime
- He surrenders his passport
- He must be confined to his residence and work functions
On the last point, there was a point of contention over whether Arnold would need to wear an ankle monitor to track his location via GPS. The defense argued that the ankle monitor would prevent him from doing his job, as he wouldn’t be able to practice with it on. The judge–Hillsborough County judge Christopher C. Sabella–agreed, but reiterated that Arnold’s travel must be limited to work. The judge argued that because Arnold is a public figure, his whereabouts are likely to be monitored by the press and social media.
“If he violates the conditions of his bond, he will be found. They will find you,” Sabella said, pointing to media cameras in the courtroom. “And you will come back, because the law will bring you back and then you will be hit with no bond until your trial.”
The entire proceedings were largely based on the testimony of the lead detective Scott Barnett. The prosecution argued that Arnold set the plans in motion that led to the alleged luring, beating, and armed robbery of three defendants in an action aimed as retaliation for items stolen from Arnold and some friends. The defense argued that the state presented no direct evidence that Arnold told the other co-defendants to go through with the plan.
“We’re early, we’re in the first quarter, but the state’s (case) just isn’t there at this point, so I can’t grant the state’s motion,” Sabella said. “I do find probable cause based on all the stuff that you’ve argued so eloquently and put together.
“It’s complex, it’s complicated, and you and the detective have done a very good job of helping me understand at 10 pages of notes that I wrote throughout the testimony. I do believe I have an understanding of it. I understand your argument regarding motive. I understand everything, and I find there’s probable cause, but I’m going to set bond.”
That bond sets Arnold apart from the other co-defendants. All six other people allegedly involved in the case were held without bond. The judge argued the difference is Arnold was never directly placed on the scene of the crime.
“The distinction in those cases was that they were there. They went into the apartment, they had hands on,” Sabella said. “… So at this stage, I find probable cause, but I don’t find a higher level to grant the state’s motion for pre-trial detention. So I’m going to deny the motion.”
The judge then turned directly to Arnold.
“But it’s a serious case; it’s serious crimes that I am finding probable cause of, and I’m going to set bond,” he continued.
Here is Arnold’s reaction to the judge’s decision:
Continue reading...
