D4vd Hit With BOMBSHELL Lawsuit in Teen Dismemberment Case

Singer turned accused murderer David has. just been sued by the family of Celeste. Rivas Hernandez. And this suit goes. after not only him, but his mom, a. security guard, managers, companies. alleging wrongful death, negligence, and. even human trafficking. We are going to. break down what this lawsuit means for. him, how it could impact the case. against him and those around him. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and. Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

David has just been sued right in the. middle of his criminal case and I want. to know what this means. What this means. for him legally, financially. What does. it mean for the search for truth. evidence? A lot to get into. Now, as we. know, David, 21-year-old David Anthony. Burke, has already been charged with. firstdegree murder with special. circumstances, continuous sexual abuse. of a child under 14, and unlawful. mutilation of human remains, all in. connection with the death of Celeste. Rivas Hernandez. He has pleaded not.

guilty to all of these charges. He has. remained held without bail. He's accused. of murdering and dismembering the body. of 14-year-old Celeste from Lake. Elzanor, California. Her remains were. reportedly found back on September 8th, 2025 in the trunk of a Tesla, allegedly. registered to David. This was a year. ago. David was arrested this past April. And prosecutors alleged that he had been. in this illegal sexual relationship with. Celeste, a minor. And when she. threatened to expose him or allegedly.

threatened to expose him, prosecutors. claim he lured her to his place and. killed her. So now Celeste's family has. filed a wrongful death lawsuit against. David. And this is based on reporting. from the Los Angeles Times and Rolling. Stone. This suit was brought by. Celeste's mom, Mercedes Martinez, and. her dad, Jesus Rivas. And it not only. accuses the singer of killing Celeste, but it also goes after his mother. managers claiming negligence for failing.

to help Celeste. So we're talking about. Colleen Burke. We're talking about his. managers Josh Marshall, Robert Morgan. Roth. Actually, the claims you have here. based on the reporting is wrongful. death, battery, sexual battery, childhood sexual assault, assault, false. imprisonment, human trafficking, intentional infliction of emotional. distress, and we're going to talk about. what all that means. But this 20page. complaint that was apparently filed in. the LA County Superior Court, it echoes. pretty much the allegations from.

prosecutors that includes that David. allegedly began a quote continuous. sexual relationship with Celeste in. November of 2023 when she was just 13. years old. And the suit says this is. evidenced by numerous text messages. discussing pregnancy, plan B, abortion, photos of him allegedly engaging in. sexual activity with Celeste inside this. home. This is the home where prosecutors. and her family claim he murdered her. back on April 23rd, 2025. I'm going to.

read you a quote. Uh this is from the. Rolling Stones review of the lawsuit. It. says, quote, "At all relevant times, Burke was an adult who occupied a. position of authority over deedent, a. minor, and was able to and did exercise. undue influence and control over her, including by providing her a concealed. cellular telephone to maintain contact. outside her parents' knowledge, using. false identities, and arranging and. paying for her travel." And the human. trafficking component of this lawsuit is.

fascinating. It's very interesting. It's. different than what we're seeing. basically in the criminal case because I. did once ask, could David face federal. human trafficking charges? We did a. whole sidebar on potential other. charges, federal charges. So, the. lawsuit reads that David allegedly. trafficked Celeste by causing or. inducing her quote to engage in. commercial sex acts. By the way, we. talked about human trafficking, sex. trafficking a lot in the Diddy case, but. the lawsuit reads, again, this is. according to Rolling Stone, quote, "The. money, food, shelter, designer gifts,

travel, a ring, and a promise of future. marriage that Burke gave to Celeste were. given on account of the sexual acts. satisfying the commercial sex act. element. Because Deedant was a minor, neither her purported consent nor any. mistakes as to her age is a defense.". And the timeline in this lawsuit, in. this complaint, again follows in line is. consistent with prosecutors. And that. includes the allegation that Celeste had. threatened to expose David the night.

before she was allegedly killed by. David. With her apparently sending a. text reading, "I will end your career. and your life." All right, I know this. is a 180, but for anybody who's a. business owner out there watching this, you don't need me to tell you that. running a business is tough enough. So, why make it harder doing things. manually, relying on dozens of apps that. don't talk to each other, right? That is. where our sponsor ODO comes in. So, ODU. is an all-in-one business management. platform with a full suite of integrated. apps that seamlessly connect all your.

operations from sales and accounting to. manufacturing, even shipping. ODU can. automatically generate professional, sleek looking sales orders and invoices. and vendor bills. And it can. automatically assign sales teams. You. can send email updates through each. sales stage and even use AI to pull. reports that will help with your. decision-making. For manufacturing, their apps can sync inventory with. real-time production and purchase. updates so you never run out of stock. And when it comes time for accounting, that's also fully automated because ODO. can create invoices and track expenses. and even summarize data with AI to save.

you hundreds of hours. You know what the. best part is? You can choose your apps. and even build custom workflows. So, it's all fully tailored to your. business's needs. take your business to. the next level by consulting with an ODO. expert today for free at. odo.com/sidebar. And the lawsuit also highlights that he. couldn't afford to let this purported. relationship come out be exposed because. he was making millions of dollars. He. was very successful. He had an album. that was about to come out, the Wii.

album. And the suit goes into. everything. It goes into the Uber ride, right, which was discussed in David's. preliminary hearing, alleging that he. ordered her an Uber to pick her up from. her home in Lake Elenor and take her to. his place in Los Angeles. The alleged. text from David to Celeste. Gates open, doors unlocked. The suit mirrors what. prosecutors claim. How 20 minutes later, they all claim that he stabbed her to. death. Here's a quote from the lawsuit. about the wound. Again, this is from.

Rolling Stone. front to back path of the. abdominal wound and the absence of any. hesitation marks are consistent with an. attack upon deedent by another rather. than any self-inflicted injury. Now, my. ears perked up. Why? Because in my. opinion, that is a direct response to. testimony from the preliminary hearing. in the criminal case where the defense. seemed to have suggested, well, how do. you know exactly what happened in the. house assuming Celeste showed up there?

Could it be she harmed herself, killed. herself right in front of David? Remember, they also seem to reference. her alleged erratic behavior, a threat. of violence against David. So, my mind. was like, are they going to argue. self-defense? Are they going to argue. that she did something to herself right. in front of David that he didn't murder. her? And just like prosecutors, the. lawsuit claims that David used a. chainsaw to dismember her body. And this. is key. This is key. This is the. difference, the main difference between.

this lawsuit and the prosecution's case. Because remember, there's only one. criminal defendant right now in. connection with Celeste's death. That's. David. The suit alleges that other. people quote enabled Burke to isolate. the deedent and facilitated the travel, the housing, the personal security. which is why the suit is going after not. only David and his companies, but also. his managers, his mother, his living. security guard, that they knew or should. have known about Burke's relationship.

with Celeste, and had a duty to stop it. Quote, knew or should have known of. Burke's dangerous propensities toward. and sexual exploitation of Celeste, a. minor, and failed to take reasonable. steps to protect her, to supervise. Burke, or to prevent the continued. abuse. Again, that appears to be a. direct quote from the lawsuit based on. reporting from Rolling Stone. So, for. example, the management company, Mogul. Vision, apparently leased that home. where this alleged murder took place. It. was that management company, according. to the lawsuit, that also reportedly.

hired David's security guard, Sheldon. Jacqu. And this security guard, according to the suit, allegedly lived. in that home when this apparent sexual. abuse occurred, even helped transport. Celeste. So the lawsuit claims that this. guard provided quote substantial. assistance and encouragement to David. Now back to the other people. So the. lawsuit says that his mother, Colleen. Burke, reportedly ran his firm, that his. manager, Robert Morgan Roth, who by the. way reportedly testified before a grand.

jury earlier in this criminal case, was. the one who approved payments that were. connected to the alleged illegal. relationship with Celeste, that he was. the one who even resided at the house, too. And so they claim that these other. people may have had actual knowledge of. this illegal sexual relationship. I'm. going to read you this other apparent. quote from the lawsuit per reporting. from Rolling Stone. quote, "Entity. defendants and management defendants. through their agents, employees, and. funds, and not merely through Burke's.

personal acts provided or facilitated. the residents, transportation, travel, communication, security, and logistics. that enable Burke to isolate Celeste. from her family and to be alone with. her." Mogul Vision, whose principal. client was Burke, leased the Los Angeles. residence at which Burke resided and at. which acts alleged herein occurred. Colleen Burke by approving and funding. arrangements that house deedent and. enable Burke's access to her and by. hosting Decedent a minor for one or more.

nights in her own home with Burke. undertook conduct giving rise to a duty. to exercise reasonable care for. Decedent's protection. Now according to. the LA Times both Mogul Vision and. Morgan Roth they have denied any. knowledge of David's alleged sexual. relationship with Celeste. But there's. another part of this lawsuit that I got. to talk about and it reflects something. else. It reflects the personal aspect of. it. It reflects the family's. perspective. And just to give you an. idea, I think this is heartbreaking, right? Because the parents claimed in. this complaint that they had to wait 8.

days for a positive identification. because their daughter, Celeste Corpse, was in a quote severely decomposed. condition with portions never recovered. So, you're getting their perspective in. a way that maybe we never got before. So, this lawsuit is seeking damages. I. believe unspecified damages. We don't. know what they'll quantify to, but we'll. talk about it. And it's not only for. Celeste's death, but also for the. alleged sexual abuse, the alleged. negligence. And I would be remiss if I.

didn't talk about the timing here, too. Right? Why was this lawsuit filed? Why. was it filed right now? So, we're not. only talking about the anniversary of. when Celeste's remains were found, and. we're talking not only about right after. her birthday. Did you know that Celeste. would have been 16 years old on the 7th? But what also happened last week? David. and his high-powered legal team, including attorney Blair Burke, they. parted ways, right? Perhaps he doesn't.

have the funds for a private defense. team, right? I mean, the question of. whether or not he was indigent. And I. will let you know that the Reva. Hernandez family, they released the. statement, I believe it was last week, that says, "The Reva Hernandez family. was shocked to learn that David Anthony. Burke claims to be indigent. It is. unfathomable that our justice system. qualifies David Anthony Burke as. indigent when David has five plus. billion streams with 16 million monthly. listeners on a single streaming platform.

and controls three corporations, David. Entertainment, Skullrose Merchandising, and Headspace Publishing. The residents. of Los Angeles County should be outraged. because it will be the taxpayers that. are picking the tab to defend this. millionaire on charges of murder, continuous sexual assault of a minor. under 14 years of age, and unlawful. mutilation of human remains. David. Anthony Burke is not indigent. His. assets are protected by his companies. Perhaps he would have money if he just. asked one of his corporations or if he. had not fraudulently transferred assets.

to his mother manager Colleen Burke, who. is raking in $75,000. a year from David Entertainment in a. blatant attempt to protect his estate. from any civil suit. So, the victim's. family wouldn't be able to get that. money as was testified to in Burke's. preliminary hearing. And there's one. other thing that I was thinking about, too. I also think with this lawsuit, did. they have no choice but to wait until. the evidence came out from the. prosecution in that preliminary hearing.

in the criminal case that they couldn't. file suit before? They needed to hear. maybe what the prosecution's evidence. was, what their theory of the case may. have been. I'm wondering that. So, I. have a lot of questions about this civil. suit, how this can affect everybody. involved, how this might affect or. impact a criminal case. Let's talk about. it. Okay, so to talk about this, let me. bring on Richard Shoenstein, litigator, trial attorney, here with me in studio. with just a fantastic suit. >> I'm segueing into my fall color scheme. What do you think? >> You It's I'm I'm I don't know what to.

say right now. I have nothing. I can't. even compete with that. >> It goes with the hair, which I've been. told is is starting to go gray. >> It only recently only recently. No, you. said to me, you go, it's good that. you're here because most people only. know you from this side up and now they. see the full picture. If we can even get. more of a a full shot from my whole body. moving, >> you see. Okay. Um, thanks for coming on. Let's talk about this. What do you make. of the lawsuit and for people who don't. know, even though it mirrors a lot of. the allegations, almost all the.

allegations from the prosecutors, the. standard of proof here is very, very. different. Right. So, talk to us about. what the standard is, why it's. different, and what you make of the your. initial impressions of the lawsuit. >> Okay. I will preface this by saying I've. not been able to see an actual copy of. the lawsuit. Neither have we. We tried. to get a copy of it. >> So, but I've heard what it claims and. and who it has claims against. And so, the first thing people need to know. about a civil lawsuit is the burden of. proof is preponderance of the evidence,

not beyond a reasonable doubt. So, it is. easier to prove a civil lawsuit than a. criminal lawsuit. You can think of a. civil lawsuit as 50.00001%. means you win. >> more likely than not, >> right? More likely than not. And in a. criminal lawsuit, it's beyond a. reasonable doubt. Also, the civil. lawsuit has a lot more parties because. it's not just a lawsuit against David. There are other parties which we can.

talk about and that's important too. It's a broader reach. Probably the civil. lawsuit won't really proceed in earnest. until the criminal proceedings are done. because you can't take a deposition of. David, for example. He would just claim. his fifth amendment right since he's. being actively prosecuted for this. crime. He wouldn't be forced to testify. >> Let me ask you this. if he is acquitted. or if he is found guilty or he pleads.

guilty, how does that affect the civil. case? >> So if he is if he is pleads guilty or is. found guilty, it arguably is what we. call restudacata or collateral estoppel. that basically would be a would would. transform into a finding in the civil. litigation that he committed the murder. which is very useful for the claims. against him and is a predicate for the.

claims against the other people who are. defendants. Now let's be clear about. this when we talk about this lawsuit. I. think the timing is really interesting. I mentioned this before. One is there's. this whole back and forth. He gets rid. he separates from his high-powered. expensive legal team for the criminal. case. Celeste family comes forward and. really knocks this idea of him being. indigent. Says he's got the companies. There's this allegation that he's hiding. assets in case there's a civil lawsuit. But I also feel they had no choice. They.

couldn't have filed this lawsuit earlier. until they heard what the prosecution's. case was, what the evidence was, what. their theory of the case was. They. couldn't have filed this seven months. ago, eight months ago. They had to wait. uh particularly, I believe, after the. preliminary hearing. Am I wrong about. that? When I think about the timing of. this lawsuit, >> I don't know that they had to wait to. commence a lawsuit. They probably had. enough facts to start one, but it was. helpful to wait and get more facts and.

hear what more of the evidence was. When. you told me that the lawsuit was. commenced just before the one-year. anniversary of her death, I immediately. thought, well, maybe there was some. statute of limitations they were trying. to get in before. >> or at least on the day or the day after. It's like right around this time. Yeah. I. >> I looked it up to see if there was any. significance of the one-year timing. Wrongful death in California, I think, is two years. So, that wouldn't be it. But there may have been some. significance to doing it right around.

the one-year anniversary. >> I also think it was significant, and I. mentioned this before, this lawsuit in. some ways is responding to the defense. in the preliminary hearing because, as. you and I both recall, in the. preliminary hearing, the defense was. seeming to suggest, you don't know what. actually happened in that house. How do. you know it was a murder? Maybe it was. self-defense, maybe she did something to. herself. They cited in the lawsuit the. uh examination of the wounds and said um. the only way this could have been. occurred, the only way this would have.

been is not a self-inflicting injury, but someone killed Celeste. It was a it. was an attack. That's interesting that. there seem to be responding to the. criminal defense. >> That is interesting because the. prosecutors. don't respond to that kind of thing. Prosecutors generally speaking don't. make public statements. The last time we. talked, we talked about this in. connection with another investigation. Prosecutors don't make public statements. about an ongoing investigation or an.

ongoing prosecution or a case. They're. very close to the vest. They have duties. to the state. They have duties to the. citizens. They don't go out. So, it is. possible that her family wanted to put. out some facts publicly because this is. a very publicfacing prosecution. And. it's possible they wanted to give some. detail that the prosecutors wouldn't be. able to give at this juncture. >> Now I want to ask you and by the way. prosecutors may go that route too. Uh.

same kind of way that they are fighting. back against this idea of self harm. There's multiple causes of action here. based on the reporting. So, wrongful. death, battery, sexual battery, childhood sexual assault, assault, false. imprisonment, human trafficking, and. intentional infliction of emotional. distress. Talk to me about these causes. of action and what they mean to you. >> Okay. Well, wrongful death obviously is. saying he killed her. Battery, he hurt. her, he caused her physical harm. I.

think you said sexual assault, >> correct? Sexual battery. Childhood. sexual assault. >> Childhood because she was underage. assault because it's physical. All of. those seem valid. Infliction of. emotional distress is sort of a separate. tort. Uh less serious than the others, but supported by the same facts. False. imprisonment. The idea that he made her. stay with him and wouldn't allow her to. leave. That's the false imprisonment. I. mean, they all seem to flow from the the.

facts as we've heard them over these. months. But the human trafficking one I. find fascinating because I've said this. before. I did a whole sidebar on whether. or not he could be charged federally. with human trafficking. The idea of. transporting someone across state lines, particularly a minor, with sexual acts. And if you talk about commercial value, uh, or what's the commercial element, and this was mentioned in the lawsuit, giving her things of value, giving her. gifts, money, transporting her promise. of a future relationship. We saw flavors. of this in the Diddy case. That was.

interesting to me, this idea of human. trafficking and that um others may have. helped facilitate it in a way. What do. you make of the human trafficking. element? >> Well, if if he did it across state. lines, then I think he probably could be. charged federally. I don't know that the. federal prosecutors would get involved. because this is predominantly a. California based crime and California. statutes are at issue. So, I don't know. that the federal government would come.

in, but they could. >> But in terms of a civil claim of human. trafficking, what do you think about. that? >> In terms of a civil, Sure. I mean, the. idea is that he transported her for. sexual purposes. I I think there's a. potential that they could make out. elements of that as well. and the. alleged text messages, >> y. >> photos, which I still believe are some. of the strongest evidence in the. criminal case. >> That's going to even have more of an. effect with these particular causes of. actions in the civil case. Right.

>> Right. >> Yeah. >> Totally agree. >> The other big thing that difference is. going after multiple people, right? He's. the only one charged criminally, but yet. in this civil suit, they're saying. there's multiple people to blame. There's multiple people who were. negligent in their alleged duty to. Celeste, that they had a duty to protect. her, that they facilitated this, that. they had actual knowledge of the sexual. relationship. What do you make of going. after all of these different parties in. this case? >> Well, two things. The first is a.

potentially an earnest attempt to hold. other people responsible because I could. see Celeste's family saying. I I know he's the guy who allegedly. committed this, but this is a person who. was supported by his parents that or his. mother especially. This is a person who. was enabled by his handler, the way some. stars are somehow sometimes enabled and. allowed to do whatever. His management, they gave him the the means to commit.

these crimes. They should have. interceded. We want to hold those people. financial. That's one. Two is financial, right? David presumably has some. financial financial wherewithal because. um he was a successful artist, but I. don't know how much and I don't know how. much he's expending on attorneys in. these proceedings, I don't know what. he's going to be left with. So from a. civil litigation standpoint, if you can.

find other pockets, the mom, the. management, especially those. corporations, Yeah. who by the way. probably have insurance that will be. invoked in order to defend these. litigations and the insurance might kick. in. So you're looking for other. financial avenues as well. So the two. things are holding people responsible, finding an avenue to a financial. recovery. >> Is there a legal duty to Celeste from. these different parties?

>> Well, that's going to be a hotly. contested. uh question there. There is not a legal. duty to protect people out in the world. You don't have a legal duty to protect. someone you don't know from sexual. assault. You have to have some kind of. special relationship. form with them or there have to be. circumstances that create such a duty. And by the way, just knowing about it is. probably insufficient to create a duty.

But if you knew about it or you had. reason to know about it, assuming these. allegations are true, and you provided. travel, you provided housing, you. provided uh the funds to facilitate this. in some way, does that create that. special relationship? >> It could. That's going to be, I think, ultimately a fact question for the jury. Also, you could um you know, you can have. charges like aiding and emedding the. other tors, right? If you if you.

>> that's like the security guard what. they're saying. Yeah. >> Yeah. If you give assistance to to him. to commit these crimes, you can have a. basis for an aiding and abetting cause. of action. But but maybe but that's. going to be an area in this case that's. going to be litigated. The defendants. are going to try to get the case. dismissed against them. That'll be a. challenge. And then if the claims stay, the the plaintiff will have to make out. sufficient evidence. And the idea, the. allegation that this sexual assault may.

have happened at his mother's place, does that create a relationship from a. parent to properly supervise and monitor. what's going on in the house? >> So, I don't think it creates a. responsibility. So, the mother is a. parent, but David is an adult at this. juncture, right? So the parent of an. adult doesn't generally have a duty to. monitor the adult. Now the fact. >> that it happens in her home.

>> allegedly. Yes. >> That adds some heft to the allegation. that that's the only thing to me that. could connect it. >> Right. if it's in the home, if she has. reason to know that something bad is. going on, if she does anything to assist. him, if she does anything to cover it. up, you would need to prove some special. facts other than she's simply the. parent. And by the way, I assume that. David's mother, if forced to defend. herself, would ask the question, "What.

about Celeste's parents?" Well, there. there seems to be in the lawsuit this. idea they had no idea what was going on. that this was kept from them. This was. kept from them what was happening. Maybe. they were misled about what was. happening, but they didn't know the true. details of what Celeste was up to. >> All right. Well, that that too that's an. issue. I mean, should they have known. their daughter is gone? >> That their underage daughter doesn't. return home multiple nights. Should they. have been on some kind of inquiry.

notice? I mean, this could be sort of an. interesting parent versus parent. litigation. >> We always say how trials are not. necessarily the search for the truth. It's about whether or not the there's, you know, the prosecution can prove a. case beyond a reasonable doubt. Um, but. with this civil case, since it's a bit. broader, >> are we going to learn more in a civil. case than we would in a criminal case? You generally speaking would learn more. in a civil case because.

the rules of evidence are slightly more. relaxed. >> Yes. >> More evidence comes in. In a civil case, more witnesses, you might hear from the. defendant. Remember, in a criminal case, you can't make the defendant testify. In. a civil case, you can make the defendant. testify. So, you're probably going to. know more. I think that's playing out. right now in the Karen Reed civil. litigation. I think more facts are. coming out than were previously.

available and I bet that would happen. here. >> What about in terms of damages? Right. now it's unspecified damages, but I'll. read you a quote from the lawsuit. This. is based on the reporting that this. resulted from a cover up and a concerted. effort to hide evidence that this would. entitle the plaintiffs to triple. damages. So when we're talking about. these causes of action, multiple people. allegedly being held responsible here. Um, what are you talking about in terms. of an actual monetary ward in terms of. damages and also I go back to this.

point, what are the assets? There was an. allegation that he's moved around. properties to uh maybe hide assets or or. prevent a recovery, prevent a judgment. Talk to me about that. >> So, in a wrongful death action, you. start with. the financial capacity of the lifetime. of the deedent. So, here you have a very. young woman who was murdered presumably. Uh, we don't have a lot of information.

about what her earning capacity would. have been over the years, but they can. bring in expert testimony to try to. create a case for that and what the. financial loss is to the family. to the. extent that some of the causes of action. inerture to the family directly or even. to her estate, there's a pain and. suffering element that could be credited. in some form of compensatory damages. And then when you talk about tripling, that's just another way of saying. punitive damages. That's the way they do. it.

>> Wouldn't that fit here if you're talking. about the alleged sexual assault, murder, and dismemberment of a. 14-year-old girl? I mean, I feel like. that's egregious enough that would. qualify for those. >> That's certainly in in a ballpark of. something that could be punitive damage. >> and parents having to live this out and. see all this. >> And you said one other thing that. interested me. You talked about. concealment of evidence, >> right? That's that is a separate basis. to go after these other defendants. If. the management company and the mom or. whoever are hiding evidence,

that's a that's separate. that and. that's a form of aiding and abetting by. the way. That's aiding and abetting. after the fact and that is a civil claim. that they could go after. That's also if. they're interfering with an. investigation, they are conceivably causing emotional. distress to the relatives who just want. the investigation to proceed in. finality. And you have these defendants.

arguably interfering with it by hiding. evidence. that could be the basis of a. claim. >> Let me ask you this. Is there a. situation where if there was a judgment. against him that if he's continuing to. earn money through streams, if people. are still listening to his music or. YouTube video, whatever it is, that that. money could flow directly to the. plaintiffs. >> Yeah. you I mean if you got a judgment. against him let let's say he's in jail. and the plaintiffs get a judgment. against him and he's earning money then.

they can work with the sheriff to to get. that money flow before it goes to him. the same way you might try to garnish. somebody's wages if you have a judgment. against them you might go to their. employer to try to garnish whatever. portion of their wages you can legally. garnish. You could do that with his. royalties is assuming that you had a. judgment. And that and that is and. that's a good point. In all likelihood, his recordings will.

continue to earn some money no matter. what happens to him. >> Final point about this. These are. allegations. Yep. This is part of a. civil suit. Civil suit different than a. criminal case. But when you hear what. they're being accused of, managers, mother, bodyguard, is there potential. criminal charges down the line for. anybody? >> Well, I if those allegations were true, then first of all, obstruction of. justice is a criminal charge. So, if.

anybody was really hiding evidence, there is a potential for a criminal. charge to be brought if the prosecutors. wouldn't bring it. That's one of the. harder charges to prove in some way. It's harder to prove you hit evidence. than it is to prove murder. >> Right? >> So that's a question. If. >> any of those defendants enabled David so. that he was able to commit this crime, knowingly did so, that could be the. basis for a criminal prosecution. And I. think about that with the mother like.

we've seen parents of school shooters. being prosecuted successfully sometimes. Same kind of thing. At what level are. the parents responsible here? It's. different because like I said, it's an. adult, not a child. But you could. potentially see a criminal charge. It. depends what the prosecutors think is. appropriate, what they think they can. prove, knowing. >> again that their burden of proof would. be much higher than in a civil case. >> Correct. Correct. Okay. Look, this gives.

us a lot to think about. We're going to. see where this goes. Hopefully, we get a. copy of the law so we can see it for. ourselves. But Rick Showstein, thank you. so much for coming on, sir. I always. appreciate it. >> Great to see you. Happy fall. >> Thank you. And that's all we have for. you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining. us. And as always, please subscribe on. YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can also check us out on NBC's. Peacock as well. If you want to follow. me, ex Instagram, my NewsNation show, Jesse Weber live, Monday through Friday, 11 pm Eastern. See you next time, everybody.