Neo Langston was arrested in Montana this week on a Los Angeles Superior Court warrant for failure to appear as a witness, according to Lewis and Clark County Jail records. Montana authorities confirmed they were assisting the Los Angeles Police Department’s Robbery-Homicide Division in executing the warrant. Langston was extradited to California on Saturday, January 24.

At this time, authorities have not publicly confirmed that Langston’s arrest is directly connected to the death investigation of Celeste Rivas Hernandez. Court records related to grand jury proceedings are sealed, and no charging documents referencing the underlying matter have been released. However, the involvement of LAPD’s Robbery-Homicide Division and the nature of the warrant have drawn significant attention—particularly given longstanding public interest in the Hernandez case.

The lack of official confirmation does not diminish the significance of the arrest itself. In fact, arrests for failure to appear as a grand jury witness are relatively rare—and when they happen, they often signal a meaningful escalation behind the scenes.

Langston was extradited to California quickly and held briefly at LAPD’s Metropolitan Detention Center before bonding out. The bond was set at 60K. The use of LAPD custody—rather than county jail—suggests a coordinated investigative process rather than a routine detention. Bond following extradition does not resolve the underlying grand jury obligation and often reflects prosecutorial confidence that compliance can be compelled without continued custody.

The case centers on the death of Celeste Rivas Hernandez, whose body was discovered in September 2025 inside a Tesla associated with entertainer David Anthony Burke (aka D4vd).

According to reports, Hernandez’s body was found in the front trunk (“frunk”) of the Tesla after the vehicle was abandoned on a residential street near a home that Burke was renting at the time. The Tesla was subsequently towed from the location and secured at an impound facility, where law enforcement began processing the vehicle.

Authorities have not publicly released detailed forensic findings related to the discovery, and much of the investigation has unfolded outside public court filings.

That silence has fueled frustration, speculation, and misinformation. But it has also suggested something else: that prosecutors may be pursuing accountability through grand jury proceedings rather than public court actions.

The arrest of a subpoenaed witness, even absent formal charges, represents one of the first visible indications that prosecutors are no longer waiting passively.

When a witness ignores a grand jury subpoena, prosecutors have several options. They can request extensions. They can negotiate through counsel. Or, when the testimony is deemed essential, they can escalate.

That escalation takes a very specific form:

Prosecutors file a motion for contempt.

A judge reviews the noncompliance.

A bench warrant is issued.

Law enforcement is authorized to arrest the witness.

The grand jury itself does not issue warrants. This is a prosecutorial decision approved by a judge.

In this case, that escalation crossed state lines—an important detail. Extradition is not symbolic. It requires resources, coordination, and judicial authorization. Prosecutors do not pursue it unless the witness is considered material to an ongoing investigation.

Public confusion often stems from a misunderstanding of how grand juries function.

An investigative grand jury exists to gather facts. It subpoenas witnesses, compels testimony under oath, reviews documents, surveillance, and digital evidence, and allows prosecutors to test timelines and credibility

A charging (or indicting) grand jury, by contrast, is presented with a nearly complete case and asked only whether probable cause exists to file charges.

Witness subpoenas and contempt arrests overwhelmingly occur during the investigative phase. This suggests prosecutors are still solidifying testimony—not hesitating.

Even without public confirmation of the grand jury’s focus, several things are now clear:

Prosecutors sought judicial enforcement.

A judge approved the warrant.

Law enforcement executed an interstate arrest.

A previously silent phase has shifted into compulsion.

This is not the posture of a stalled investigation. It is the posture of one entering its pressure phase.

While the presence of a body in a suspect’s vehicle is legally considered circumstantial evidence, it is also highly probative. The distinction is not about strength but about structure—prosecutors must still establish control, timing, and intent. In cases like this, witness testimony often provides the connective tissue that turns strong circumstantial evidence into a chargeable, trial-ready case.

This was not the arrest many observers were waiting for. But it may be the arrest that makes future charges possible.

When prosecutors begin forcing witnesses to the table—rather than waiting for cooperation—the case is no longer dormant. It is moving, deliberately and methodically, toward resolution.

Silence, in this context, should not be mistaken for inaction.