Darius Miles, a former Crimson Tide basketball player, could go to trial in his capital murder case in 2025, defense attorney Mary Turner said.
At a hearing Wednesday, Judge Daniel Pruet of the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County denied the defense’s renewed motion for bond, meaning Miles will remain in jail. This is Miles’ third time being denied bond.
Pruet also denied a separate motion to suppress potentially incriminating statements Miles made to law enforcement before and after Investigator Jeff Miller read him his Miranda rights in the hours following the January 2023 shooting, Turner said.
In order to interrogate a person in custody, officers are typically first required to read the person’s Miranda rights — which, among other things, include the right to remain silent — and confirm that the arrested person understands their rights. The person must then consent to speak with police. By following this process, officers allow for any statements provided by suspects in custodial interrogations to be used as evidence in trial.
Turner declined to comment on behalf of her client about Pruet’s rulings, saying it was improper to do so.
The defense has maintained that Miles acted in self-defense the night of the shooting when he allegedly gave his gun to his friend Michael Davis. Davis then allegedly shot and killed 23-year-old Jamea Harris.
“The judge said from the bench that he had 2 capital cases older than Darius’s that will be heard in 2024. I gathered from what he said that the case will be tried in 2025,” Turner wrote in an email statement.
The Wednesday hearing was a continuation of one from June 17, which featured testimony from three law enforcement officials and a recording of a 911 call allegedly made by Miles the night of the shooting.
According to court documents, on Wednesday Turner and Miles’ other defense attorneys submitted a motion to strike “any and all testimony of government witnesses relating to the subjective belief of the police officers involved in the unlawful interrogation of the Defendant,” particularly the statements elicited during the June 17 hearing. The motion argued that these subjective statements were irrelevant and should thus be stricken.
According to Turner, Pruet said at the hearing that he would consider this new motion and issue a written order in a few weeks.
