Did D4vd Act Alone? Bombshell Claim in Murder Case!

We got our hands on this bombshell. 20page lawsuit filed against singer. David by the family of the teenage girl. he's accused of murdering. And I also. spoke with the man behind the suit, her. family's attorney, Patrick Steinfeld, to. not [music] only discuss this case, but. also what may be happening with the. criminal trial, including [music]. whether anyone else has been. investigated. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law on Crime. I'm Jesse. [music] Weber.

By the way, if you're into content. creation, [music] if you're putting. things out on social media, you might be. wondering, how do we share all these. clips on sidebar so quickly on these. rapidly developing stories? Well, we use. something that maybe a lot of people. don't know about. It's called Opus Clip. So, Opus Clip is an all-in-one AI editor. that makes it so easy to cut, create, and upload videos across any platform. Opus Clip generates B-roll, it refframes. footage, and it even cleans up audio. through AI. They find the best moments. from your content. Visit. opus.pro/sidebar.

You sign up, you upload. In minutes, you. will have perfectly edited clips that. your audience is absolutely going to. love. Use OpusClip as your source for. Tik Tok shorts, reels. This is the most. powerful tool there is to edit like a. professional. Go to opus.pro/sidebar. to get a free week and then 50% off for. the next three months. That's. opus.pro/sidebar. Right now, one-time viral hitmaker. David, real named David Anthony Burke, is facing the possibility of spending.

the rest of his life in prison or even. the death penalty as Los Angeles. prosecutors accuse him of murdering. 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez. A. judge had determined after a multi-day. preliminary hearing that David would. face trial on charges of firstdegree. murder with special circumstances, continuous sexual abuse of a child under. 14, and unlawful mutilation of human. remains. And during his arraignment. earlier this month, this was a shocker. It wasn't that David reentered a. not-uilty plea. No, it was that this.

time he wasn't backed by a high-powered. defense team. Instead, during that. hearing, we learned he swapped out his. private attorneys for representation. from the public defenders office. And. remember, investigators alleged that. David met Celeste online when she was. just 11, that he started allegedly. having sex with her when she was just. 13. He was 18. Prosecutors believe that. Celeste threatened to expose their. relationship, ruin David's blossoming. music career, and that is when he. allegedly decided to kill her. It is.

those allegations that make up the. special circumstances allegations, which. is why you could potentially see the. death penalty. Now, this attorney's. switch up in the question of whether or. not David may now be indigent, it had a. lot of people wondering what happened to. the millions of dollars David had. allegedly earned over the last few. years. This was as his online success. morphed into a record deal. So much. testimony in his preliminary hearing. about how much money he was making or. planned to make. Is he actually broke? The victim's family, Celeste's parents, they have themselves accused David of.

hiding money to protect him from future. civil litigation. And I will tell you. the reason goes back to this topic right. now. It seems that litigation has. officially arrived. Now, we already gave. you an overview of this lawsuit on a. previous episode as the details started. to come out through public reporting, but now we actually have a copy of the. lawsuit. And more importantly, we got a. chance to bring in Patrick Steinfeld, the attorney representing Celeste's.

family who filed this lawsuit on their. behalf. So, I'll give you a quick. overview of the lawsuit and then you're. going to hear this interview with. Patrick Steinfeld. Okay. This complaint. was filed in the Superior Court of Los. Angeles by Mercedes Martinez and Jesus. Rivas Alvarado on behalf of Celeste and. the suit has multiple defendants here. which makes it so interesting. So it's. David himself, companies that are. associated with him. So David. Entertainment, Headspace Publishing, Skullrose Merchandise, you heard me talk. with Patrick Steinfeld a little bit.

about why they went after the companies. or going after the companies. his. managers Josh Marshall, Robert Morgan. Roth, Mogul Vision LLC, Mogul Vision. Partners, David's apparent live-in. security guard, Sheldon Jakes, Colleen. Burke, this is David's mom. Apparently, she was managing his money. And the list. of causes of action, right, the claims, what you're suing for in this lawsuit is. even longer. You have wrongful death, survival action, battery, fatal. stabbing, survival action, sexual.

battery, survival action, childhood. sexual assault, survival action assault, survival action, false imprisonment. So. that's about Celeste allegedly being. confined in that residence against her. will before she was allegedly killed. using force, duress, survival action, intentional infliction of emotional. distress, negligent infliction of. emotional distress, interference with. right to control, disposition of. remains, survival action, human. trafficking. We talked about that a lot.

on our last episode, too. So those are. all claims solely against David. Okay. Then you have survival action, child. sexual assault, negligence and breach of. duty to protect. That's against the. entity defendants. Survival action. negligence. That's against the security. guard and David's mom. Survival action. aiding and abetting and that's against. the security guard. So, in essence, what. the family, what Patrick Steinfeld is. alleging here is that people close to.

David had to know or should have known. what was allegedly going on here and. that Celeste was a young girl, that she. was traveling with David, visiting his. family in Texas, even living at his. rental house at one point, and that they. helped facilitate this, that they had a. duty to protect her. Now, quick sidebar. here on sidebar. As you know, this is a. big case. We follow a lot of big cases. here on Sidebar, but sometimes we're. kind of limited in everything that we.

can show you on this program, which is. why we started the case file section on. the Long Crime Plus app. So, we're. basically opening up the evidence vault. on all these big cases so you can. inspect the raw body cam footage, the. 911 calls, the crime scene photos, the. full trial tapes, all firsthand. Plus, you get adree streaming of all your. favorite law and crime and court TV. shows. And right now, we got a special. offer. Use my promo code Sidefall. You. get your first three months of Lawn. Crime Plus for just $2.99 a month. That. is 50% off the regular monthly price.

Hope you can check it out. Here's what. the complaint says. I'm going to read. you two paragraphs to give you an idea. of this quote. entity defendants and the. 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 other logistics that. enabled Burke to isolate the seedant. 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 hereinccurred with a. portion of the lease costs paid by one. or more of entity defendants and. approved by Colleen Burke. Mogul Vision. arranged the hiring of defendant Jake as. a living security guard. Robert Morgan. Roth managed Burke's day-to-day affairs, processed the enterprises bills, and. resided at the 1368 Tahini Place. residence. That's where prosecutors. claim this murder took place. alleged. murder. And Colleen Burke is a member of. David Entertainment LLC. And Burke's. personal finance director approved and.

paid the enterprises bills, including. the residence lease, was a signatory on. Burke's accounts, and controlled the. flow of the enterprises funds. The. entity defendants and the individual. defendants through their agents and. employees knew or should have known of. Burke's dangerous propensities toward. and sexual exploitation of the seedant a. minor and failed to take reasonable. steps to protect her to supervise Burke. or to prevent the continued abuse. Burke's knowledge of his own conduct and.

propensities as owner and director of. the entity defendants is imputed to. those entities. The entity defendants. are not excused from their duty to. protect a seedant merely because Burke. owned them. And we've talked about. potential liability in our previous. episode, but you're going to hear what. Patrick Steinfeld has to say, too. But. according to the Los Angeles Times, Mogul Vision, Morgan Roth, they have. denied knowing that David was in an. alleged sexual relationship with. Celeste. David is the only one to have. been charged criminally in connection.

with Celeste's death. He is, of course, innocent unless proven guilty. But I. want you to listen very carefully to my. conversation with Patrick Steinfeld. Again, Celeste family attorney who filed. this lawsuit. And I want you to listen. to what he says about others allegedly. involved in David's purported crimes. Patrick, thank you so much for coming. on. I I really really appreciate it. The. best the only place I know where to. start right now is I just want to know. how the family is doing. You know,

particularly at this time, it's the. one-year mark. It would have been her. 16th birthday. Celeste 16th birthday. How is the family doing? >> They're doing as well as can be expected. under this circumstances. The last uh. few days have been really rough for the. family, but they've got uh the support. and love from uh their family members. and uh close friends and colleagues. And.

so they're doing the best they can, but. uh obviously the one-year anniversary as. well as what would have been Celeste's. 16th birthday were were very difficult. for the family. Before we even get into. the law and what's happening here, you. know, the other day when it was. announced about this lawsuit and there. was a statement that I believe was put. out by your office, there was an. accompanying photo and we saw Celeste in. a photo that we hadn't seen before. And. one of the things that I've been trying.

to understand since we've been covering. this in September of last year is I just. want to know a little bit more about. her. I I want to understand and I think. sometimes that gets lost. It gets lost. in a criminal case. It gets lost in a. civil case. You talk so much about the. defender defense. Just from from your. experience with the family, >> what do they say about Celeste? Who was. Celeste? What was she like? >> Well, she was a beautiful, very. intelligent uh young girl. She was fun.

and full of life. Uh very charismatic. She was the type of girl that when she. walked into a room, uh, she just walked. in with joy and and, uh, she filled the. home with laughter. And she was, you. know, kind of the center, kind of the. rock of the family because, uh, her. parents are hardworking. uh, people. Her mom was working two jobs.

uh during all of this time. And her. father, Jesus, works uh long hours with. a long commute. And so they'd spend. Friday evenings uh together watching. movies. And Celeste loved to dance and. uh you know, tell jokes and listen to. music like uh like any other uh young. teenage girl. But um she was like the. foundation uh of the family and so the.

family um obviously misses that and. they'll never have that again. >> That's the sense that I've been getting. as I understand and try to learn more. about Celeste. Um before we even get. into this, I just want if you can extend. um you know our thoughts, our well. wishes to Celeste family uh as this. progresses and um as the story maintains. in the noons. I I I know it can't be. easy for them. Particularly, I have to. imagine during that preliminary hearing, how difficult was that for them to go.

through that? >> I think that they grossly underestimated. how difficult that was going to be and I. encouraged them as well as Beth. Silverman who was prosecuting the uh. criminal charges. We both encouraged the. family to step out in certain times, but. they were determined to show their. support and love for Celeste, as well as. their support for the prosecutor's.

office and the LAPD investigators who. worked extremely hard to put this these. charges together. And so it was. important for them to be there to show. their support and love, but it was it. was very painful for them. And my. concern was that they were going to see. an image that they you can't unsee or. they're going to hear something that you. can't unhear. And unfortunately, they.

heard a lot of that. And so it was very. painful for them. And I think it's it's. scarred them in a way that they're going. to live with for the rest of their life. >> It's unthinkable. It is really. unthinkable for them to be experiencing. and hearing what happened to Celeste. Um. raises another question though. How much. coordination or communication has there. been with the DA's office and the. family? Um you know, particularly about.

decisions that are going to be made. I. mean, even the death penalty potentially. on the table. How much communication is. there with the DA's office and the. family? >> I think the um coordination and uh the. involvement between the district. attorney's office and us has been just. right. It's um if there's something. that's important that needs to be. discussed, we discuss it. But as far as. the obviously the day-to-day decisions,

we're not involved with that. But a lot. of these discussions. um haven't taken place yet because it's. not the right time. And one of those. decisions is on the death penalty. So. although the family supports the death. penalty in this case, that's not. something that we've discussed with the. uh district attorney's office because at. this point it's really not even an. issue. However, when it becomes the. right time, we will discuss it with the.

district attorney's office and uh let. them know that the family uh supports. the death penalty. But we've met with. the district attorney, we've met with. Beth Silverman several times and so they. have cooperated with us and we've. cooperated with them as well as the LAPD. investigation. So, I think that the. communication between uh their office. and my office has been uh just perfect. >> That's good to hear. And before we get.

into the civil suit, uh just one final. point I had about this, it's look, he David is innocent unless. proven guilty. Um these are allegations. the prosecution has to prove their case. Having said that, do you know if the. family would be open to a deal where. potentially the death penalty is not. invoked or the death penalty was taken. off the table and he were to plead. guilty and potentially spend life in. prison? Do you know if the family would. be open to something like that? >> Well, that's not something that we've.

discussed at this point, Jesse. uh I. don't think the time uh now is. appropriate to discuss that but that is. absolutely the discussion that we will. have at the uh appropriate time. >> Okay. So let's talk about this suit. Let. me ask you first the timing. Did did. David changing his legal team going with. the public defender? Did that impact the. timing of filing this lawsuit at all? >> No, that had absolutely nothing to uh do.

with it. The timing had been set uh um. several months ago and it really had to. do with the uh statute of limitations. regarding the false imprisonment. allegation which is uh one year from the. time of the uh false imprisonment. However, in our case, the parents. obviously they weren't aware of the. false imprisonment when it took place. And so, we started our statute of. limitations from the one year that they.

learned of the false imprisonment. And. so, that's what we were trying to do was. get our our uh complaint on file within. one year from the time that the parents. learned of the uh false imprisonment. So. the otherwise the wrongful death statute. of limitations is 2 years but it was. because of the false imprisonment. allegation that we wanted to get our uh. complaint on file within one year.

>> It's interesting because I think that's. uh one of my legal analysts that said uh. last week when we covered this lawsuit. too he made the same point about the. statute of limitations. the um was it. also important to wait to hear what the. prosecution presented in the preliminary. hearing before you filed a lawsuit? That was an absolute must. We couldn't. have proceeded without the preliminary. hearing because. 99%. of the evidence that was presented in.

the preliminary hearing the family. wasn't aware of. I mean, the family has. very little knowledge of the uh acts. that took place and so we were waiting. for the preliminary uh hearing to take. place before filing our complaint. In. fact, the basis of our allegations. are uh derived from the uh preliminary. hearing transcripts. So, we had to wait.

until there's a prelim preliminary. hearing before we could proceed with the. complaint. Oh, I mean the first thing. that I saw when I was reading the. lawsuit is how much it mirrors in the. prosecution's allegations. But I did. notice something, and correct me if I'm. wrong. I saw a response to David's. criminal defense team. And correct me if. I'm wrong, because what I noticed during. the preliminary hearing was the defense. seeming to suggest, reasonable doubt. could be, you don't know exactly what. happened in the house when she allegedly.

arrived, right? and they seem to be. suggesting, did she do something to. herself? I don't know if they're trying. to mount a potential self-defense. argument, but you can't say definitively. what happened in the house. In this. lawsuit, you responded to that. You said. there's only one thing when you look at. the injuries, when you look at the. forensic material, there's only one. thing that makes sense as to what. happened to Celeste. Am I correct that. this was a direct response to what the. defense kind of insinuated or argued at. the preliminary hearing? Well, it really.

has to do more with the difference in. the burden of proof. In a criminal case, the prosecu prosecution has to prove uh. guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And. that's a heavy burden. However, in a. civil case that like we're bringing, the. burden is um like 51%. And so if if you put it on a scale of uh. 0 to 100, um we just have to prove that. the evidence is more likely than not. So.

someone can have 49% doubt, but if they. believe the allegations. at a 51% number, then that's sufficient. to meet our uh burden of proof. So, we're confident since we have a lower. burden of proof than the prosecution has. in a criminal case, we're confident that. we can uh meet our burden. >> But this is a way to counter that. narrative that Celeste did something to. herself or that she or that David was. acting in self-defense.

>> That's absolutely correct. >> Okay. And by the way, those arguments. that were insinuated by the defense at. the preliminary hearing, did you know. they were going to go that route? What. was your reaction to going that route? >> I did not know they were going that. route, but obviously they have to go a. route to create a defense. Uh I was. offended by that. But on the other hand,

the defense attorneys in criminal cases, you know, they have to work with what. they've got. They they can't choose. their clients. And so they have to uh. work with the evidence that they have. They have to create uh doubt wherever. they can. And I think that that was the. only potential defense that they could. create is that Celeste may have done. this to herself. Um but uh I was shocked.

that they were going there, but I think. everyone was waiting to hear what their. defense was going to be. And. unfortunately, they're they're putting a. blame on a 14-year-old child. >> And I don't know if the public defenders. office is going to piggy back off of. that and adopt the same kind of defense. moving forward towards trial. We'll see. This lawsuit was uh profound in a number. of ways, but one of the things that. really stood out is that it's not just. going after David. It's going after. corporations, his mother, managers. Talk.

to me about what the motivation was. Why. why you believe it's necessary to uh. file a suit against these other named. defendants? >> Well, the motivation is because we think. that there's liability on on their. behalf and so [clears throat] we're. going to go after every person, every. individual, every entity where we think. that we can uh establish liability. And um as you know in California the.

general rule is that uh there is no duty. to come to the aid of another person. except in special circumstances like a. parent, child, teacher, uh student. But. you could be a Olympic swimmer and if. you see a stranger in a public swimming. pool drowning, you have absolutely no. legal duty to come to that person's aid. However, if you undertake a duty to come.

to uh an individual's aid, then you have. a duty to exercise reasonable care. And. if you fail to exercise reasonable care. and you make things worse or you. increase the risk of injury or harm, then that constitutes an undertaking. And if you're negligent, then there's. liability for your negligent. undertaking. And in this case the uh.

management employees which uh would be. Mogul vision and uh Mogul vision. partners and uh that was controlled and. operated by uh John Marshall who hired. Robert Morgan Roth. They hired Sheldon. Jake as a living security guard and. their undertaking consisted of leasing. and controlling the premises uh where. the most of the acts of sexual abuse. occurred and where the murder allegedly.

took place and they hired retained. controlled the premises personnel as. well as security. The security was hired. to protect David Burke, but there were. also additional acts that were involved. We believe that he assisted uh Burke in. removing Celeste from the family home. He transported her, including. transporting her with [snorts] fake ID. to clubs with uh David Anthony Burke.

[snorts]. And Jake also arranged and facilitated. Burke's access and control over Celeste. By hiring Jake, what the undertaking. resulted in is that David Burke had. private isolated access to a 14-year-old. child under the uh eyes of Sheldon Jake.

and as an employee of the the uh. management uh company that creates. liability. And basically what Jake did. is he put Celeste in a position of uh. potential harm and made things worse by. allowing David Anthony Burke to be. isolated with Celeste. >> Now besides the potential leasing.

paperwork with respect to this Mr. Jake. or even um these managers or um uh. David's mother, Colleen. Can you share. with us what potential evidence or. current evidence you may have or hope to. have to prove this to prove this sense. of liability? >> Well, what we're doing is we're going on. uh a reasonable inference and so we. don't have any documentation. Now, a lot. of this information we learned from the.

preliminary hearing, and so we are. creating uh what we believe are. reasonable inferences that that we can. prove. But we do know that uh Jake was. hired by uh David Anthony Berg's. management team to protect David. That. was testified to in the preliminary. hearing. [snorts] And we do know that he. transported. uh David and Celeste where she had fake.

ID and we believe that Jake is the one. that transported her from her house on. one occasion and the fact that he's. protecting uh David the reasonable. inference is he's protecting David and. allowing him to become isolated and uh. remain in private. with Celeste without being disturbed. at. a at a time when she's 13 and 14 years.

old. >> There's a part in the lawsuit that makes. the claim that Burke and others hid. evidence. [snorts]. What do you mean about the others hiding. evidence? >> Well, again, much of this complaint is. based upon information and belief. because we don't have the actual. documents, the actual evidence at this. time. And so we believe that um Burke. may not have done this on his own. So. we're making the allegation and that.

protects that allegation if we do find. that another individual assisted Burke. in uh the alleged murder or the. destroying of evidence or the. mutilation. So, we're leaving that. allegation open um in the event that we. do find another individual that was. involved. >> But no one specifically because I guess. the question is, do you know if the DA, if the LAPD has investigated anyone else.

in connection with David's alleged. crimes? >> I believe they have. the district. attorney's office is is not showing. their cards and uh the time and place to. do that is is at trial. But I think that. they've got um witnesses that are going. to support uh all the allegations that. were made in their uh criminal complaint. against David Anthony Berg. Do you mean.

potentially cooperating witnesses who. were offered a deal in exchange for. testimony? >> It could be. >> Look, I asked DA Hawkman about that, too, and he was uh, you know, obviously. tight- lipped. He couldn't share much, but um, you know, he didn't when I asked. him, it was he didn't foreclose the. possibility that that might be. happening, too. So, we'll see about. that. Um, back to the suit, what are you. hoping for, um, in terms of damages? And. do you think in terms of, you know, there's been a lot of questions about.

what is the financial status of David. right now? Um, and I know there's been. comments about that too. Um, what do you. hope for in terms of damages and do you. think that it is the corporate entities. that could hold the funds for damages? I. think that they could. I find it hard to. believe that David Anthony Burke is. indigent and that basically means you're. broke. You have to understand that in. California, when a criminal defendant. files for a court-appointed attorney,

this is self-reported information. They. don't run this through some system to uh. determine whether or not these facts are. true. So, you could be a millionaire and. go in and say like, "I'm making $1,200 a. month." And that is accepted. And I. think the reason it's accepted is. because most people that are hiring. public defenders qualify for public. defenders. They are indigent. My concern.

is that if you've got access and control. over corporations, well, that's an asset. And if you don't. disclose that asset on a self-reported. form, then you qualify for a public. defender in California. And so my. concern is that David Anthony Burke did. not disclose all of his assets, but the. corporations also have assets and we are.

confident that we're going to be be able. to establish liability with these. corporations and so we are absolutely. pursuing them for for monetary. compensation as to what the value of. this this uh uh cases. I mean, clearly. it's millions. >> Now, Patrick, before we wrap things up, I just wanted to ask you, were you. surprised that David split ways with. Blair [snorts] Burke and Co.,

>> I was I was shocked. I know there's been. a lot of discussion. why he did it and presumably, you know, his position is he's broke. I think it might be because he realized. he did not have a defense and he's going. to cut his losses because he knows he's. going to get convicted and he's going to. put his money into corporations.

which his mother is still at least as of. two months ago was still earning $75,000. a year from D4VD Entertainment. I mean, it's still an ongoing business that's. bringing in revenue. >> Patrick, I lied. I had one more question. for you. My last question to you is, is. the family receiving support? Are they. receiving support from people in the. community, maybe strangers during this. process? Because unfortunately, one of. the other things that I've seen during.

the course of this case is there's been. a focus put on the family in a negative. light, which is really unfortunate to. see. I'm just curious, are they getting. the proper support from people as they. navigate what is again, I'll use a word, a truly unthinkable situation for them? And I I my mind kept going back to them. during the preliminary hearing. What was. shown in that courtroom? Are they. getting support that they need? Well, I'm glad you asked that, Jesse, because.

the one thing that they tell me all the. time is they're so grateful. of of the support and the love that. they're receiving from the uh community. in Lake Elsor. And um when I talk to. them about putting together a press. release, they always tell me, "Make sure. you think [snorts] that you thank uh you. know, people in Lake Ellenor for all of. their support." So I'm glad that you. brought that up because um I I've.

mentioned that u I think once or twice, but uh I need to I need to uh you know. con confirm that more often. They are. receiving support from the people of. Lake Elsnor and it's giving them the. strength and courage to to carry on. during this extremely horribly difficult. time. >> And whichever way this criminal case. shakes up, whichever way the civil case. shakes up, I am thinking about them. I. am wishing them the best. Thank you for. coming on, explaining the suit,

explaining how they're doing. Um and and. I think most importantly just even. explaining a little bit more about. Celeste who as I say sometimes the. victim in a case gets lost as we talk. about the law and the motions and the. court cases and the defendants. So thank. you Patrick. Really really appreciate. you taking the time. >> Thank you Jesse. >> 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, [music].

wherever you should get your podcasts. 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 p.m. [music] Eastern. I'll see you. next time, everybody.