By Julia Huffman
Published: May. 20, 2024 at 11:51 AM EDT|Updated: May. 20, 2024 at 6:36 PM EDT
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WAVE) - Now that the PGA Championship has concluded, one of the remaining questions is what will happen to top golfer Scottie Scheffler?
Scheffler was on his way to Valhalla early Friday morning, not long after John Mills, a PGA volunteer, was hit and killed by a shuttle bus. Police were in the area trying to direct traffic with the road closures when they stopped Scheffler, who was trying to get to the golf club ahead of his tee time.
An arrest citation said Scheffler did not listen to the officer’s instructions and drove off, dragging the officer and ripping his pants. Scheffler was arrested is faced with a number of charges, including felony assault of a police officer, reckless driving, and criminal mischief.
Related coverage
- Scottie Scheffler caps a ‘hectic’ weekend by rallying to a strong finish at the PGA Championship
- Charges against Scottie Scheffler under review
- World No. 1 golfer Scottie Scheffler says there was a ‘big misunderstanding’ in situation leading to his arrest
Scheffler was released on his own recognizance, so he was able to make his tee time on Friday and play in the PGA Championship.
“My situation will get handled,” Scheffler said. “It was a chaotic situation and a big misunderstanding.”
Scheffler finished the weekend in a tie for eighth behind winner Xander Schauffele. He is scheduled to play at Colonial in Fort Worth next week. Scheffler was originally scheduled to appear in court on Tuesday, but that court date has been delayed until June 3.
Newly released video showed what went down inside the courtroom Monday morning.
Scheffler is represented by Attorney Steve Romines. Romines said he was never consulted about the original arraignment date, thus the motion to have it moved to a later date.
County Attorney Mike O’Connell was also present in court. He objects the motion to have the date moved. He says Scheffler needs to be present in court with Romines.
“The rule says that if you are charged with a felony, you are to be present in arraignment and in all stages of the proceedings,” O’Connell said.
Romines responded, saying, “If he needs to be here, I’ll have him here. I’m asking the arraignment to continue to June 3 with the same bond conditions.”
Jefferson District Court Judge Anne Delahanty had to clarify the situation.
“Maybe I’m confused,” she said. “I feel like (Romines) just asking to move the arraignment, not to make his client not here.”
“Correct, that’s correct, judge,” Romines responded. “If we haven’t resolved the case by June 3, he’ll be here with me in court.”
“I object,” O’Connell said. “I think we need to get the arraignment done and then let’s begin the process of trying to see when and if this matter can be resolved prior to the next court date and not move the arraignment out...This man should be treated like everyone else in this matter.”
Delahanty asked O’Connell why the county is objecting to his arraignment being on June 3 rather than May 21 if it meant convenience to Romine’s calendar.
“I simply think that is how the matter should be processed,” O’Connell said in response. “It was set for this date ... the standard is when appropriate, not whether we all agree about it, we all think it’s a good idea, it all sounds good. It’s when and if it’s appropriate and respectfully the Commonwealth does not think that this is appropriate to do that, so we don’t have an agreement to judge. I don’t think we’re required to show prejudice, it’s when appropriate.”
“I made the motion, they’re objecting,” Romines said. “He keeps referring to ‘when appropriate’, which is specifically referring to remote appearance. There’s nothing inappropriate regarding moving a court date. It happens every day. So when Mr. O’Connell says, ‘we don’t want to treat him differently,’ Then go through and look how many cases are agreed to by continuance by the county every day. They are absolutely treating him differently, and they have no basis for it. He keeps referring to ‘when appropriate’. That language does not refer to motions to continue, it refers to remote appearance, and we’re not asking for that judge.”
Ultimately, the judge overruled O’Connell’s rebuttal, taking into consideration that Romines had not been consulted about the date despite the fact that he was already representing Scheffler.
Copyright 2024 WAVE. All rights reserved.
