The case surrounding the death of 15 year old Celeste Rivas Hernandez has taken a new turn, with a new report saying prosecutors are moving closer to potential charges against singer d4vd.
It is the kind of moment that shifts a story from months of speculation into the quieter, more consequential space where legal decisions get made behind closed doors.
What the latest grand jury reporting says
A report published Monday, December 29, says a Los Angeles grand jury hearing witnesses in the case is expected to vote on indictments, and that authorities, including a prosecutor identified in the story, believe d4vd was involved in celeste rivas Hernandez’s death. The report describes this grand jury as one that can vote on charges, not only gather evidence.
The reporting also notes that the testimony phase could extend into early 2026, keeping the case in motion even as public attention spikes again.
What is confirmed about Celeste Rivas Hernandez and the Tesla discovery
Rivas Hernandez, who was 15, was found dead on September 8, 2025, inside a Tesla registered to d4vd after the vehicle was impounded at a tow yard in Los Angeles, according to reporting from mainstream outlets covering the investigation and court filings.
Authorities have not publicly released a cause of death, and there have been no announced charges connected to the case as of December 29.
A national report on the court
Why the autopsy information is sealed
A security hold was placed on the medical examiner’s case file by court order at the request of investigators, blocking the release of records including the cause and manner of death.
The county medical examiner’s office publicly confirmed the hold in a press release, describing it as a restriction that prevents posting or releasing details until further notice.
Rumors, corrections, and the cost of a story living online
As the investigation has continued, the case has repeatedly been pulled into viral rumor cycles, some of which officials have disputed in public reporting.
That churn has created a grim split screen reality: a grieving family living through a real loss, and an online audience treating gaps in information as space to invent.
On X, entertainment accounts quickly amplified the headline level developments as they surfaced.
Where the case stands now
Even with the new report about a possible indictment, d4vd has not been publicly charged, and the official forensic findings remain sealed by the court order.
For readers trying to make sense of the tension between what is said online and what is confirmed in court filings, the most important point is also the simplest: the grand jury process is still underway, and the public record is still incomplete.
What to Expect as the Grand Jury Process Continues
Looking ahead, the next phase of this case will unfold largely out of public view. Grand jury proceedings are not bound by fixed timelines, and any decision on potential indictments may take weeks or months, depending on the scope of testimony and evidence under review. Until that process concludes, investigators are unlikely to release additional details, particularly while the court-ordered seal on the autopsy remains in place.
If indictments are returned, the case would move into an open court setting, where filings, hearings, and motions would begin to shape a clearer public record. If no charges are issued, the investigation could still remain active, or authorities could close the matter without further action. Either outcome would mark a significant shift, but neither will happen instantly.
For now, what remains certain is the absence of formal charges and the continued legal protections afforded to all parties involved. For the family of Celeste Rivas Hernandez, the process continues at a measured pace that often feels at odds with the speed of online discussion. As attention cycles rise and fall, the case itself advances through established legal channels, guided by procedure rather than public pressure.
Updates, when they come, are expected to emerge through court filings and verified reporting, not social media speculation. Until then, the trajectory of the case remains defined by waiting for decisions, for clarity, and for a record that reflects evidence rather than assumption.