Q: What does it mean when a person is indicted for theft and there is no discovery or nothing in the discovery?

A: That's a lot to unpack. What happened?

First, Miranda warning are required only if the police intend to use the answers to questions they ask during a custodial interrogation. If they didn't question you, don't need your answers, or you were not in custody when you were questioned, they don't need Miranda. Second, the punishment, so to speak, for the state for violating Miranda is not dismissal of the case but exclusion of the answers given during interrogation and potentially other evidence that was uncovered only because of those answers.

There does not have to be an affidavit from the alleged victim. The grand jury heard evidence and returned an indictment, this is sufficient to charge someone with a crime.

If the government, properly served with a motion for discovery, failed to provide it, there may be a real issue there. If you failed to file for discovery, you wouldn't get any. If there were discovery violations, they could lead to the case being thrown out.

Excessive bail is a matter of opinion. The court's opinion of what is and is not excessive is almost certainly different than yours. Again, dismissal of the charges is not the remedy here. An appellate court which finds excessive bail has been required simply issues an order reducing the amount of bail to an appropriate level.

If you were denied a trial by jury, and did not plead guilty or no contest, and you properly demanded the jury, if necessary, a new trial may be ordered.

I do not know what you mean by "harmed under the color of law."