Stunning Twist in Lil Durk Murder-for-Hire Case

We got major news in the Lil Durk case. Charges that were added just weeks. before trial are now being thrown out of. this trial. And a federal judge called. out prosecutors in open [music] court. Durk scored this big legal victory that. changes everything about his upcoming. [music] case. And we're going to break. down what it means and what could happen. all with former [music] federal. prosecutor Neema Rahmani. Welcome to. Sidebar, presented by Law & Crime. I'm. Jesse Weber.

All right, big news in the Lil Durk. case. We've been following this one from. the beginning. So, the rapper just. scored a major legal win ahead of his. federal murder-for-hire trial, where he. stands accused of orchestrating a hit. against a rival rapper. Yeah, you can. see there are members of Lil Durk, also. known as Durk Banks, team addressing the. media outside this Los Angeles. courthouse. This is courtesy of Rolling. Stone reporter Nancy Dillon. And we're. going to have more on that in the fight. that they're prepping for in his.

upcoming August trial in a little bit. But I just want to give you a little. perspective on you put this into context. about why this is such a big deal. So, Lil Durk has been essentially sitting in. a jail cell for almost 2 years. His. trial was supposed to start next month. And that is for the 2022 killing of. Savanna Robinson out in Los Angeles. Prosecutors allege that this was a. murder-for-hire plot stemming from a. feud with rapper Quando Rondo. And that. Robinson was just in the wrong place at.

the wrong time. But then, what was it, less than 3 months before trial? The. government drops a bomb. And what just. happened exploded in their faces, essentially. Durk was handed a new. superseding indictment with new charges. We're talking entirely separate. allegations that stretched across state. lines and years. They're talking alleged. involvement in a shooting in Chicago, this attempted murder in Atlanta, I. believe even this apparently allegedly.

drug operation, drug trafficking. operation. So, all these different. things. And suddenly, this case wasn't. just about one episode. It was no longer. just about this Los Angeles incident. It. was potentially going to be a trial that. included a whole different set of. alleged crimes that his lawyers argued. the government could have brought from. the beginning. That they're not playing. fair. This is according to court filings. that we reviewed. And Durk's legal team. argued, "Look, they would have a choice.

to make. Either they were going to go to. trial on all of this and risk needing to. ask for more delays to prepare, or they. could fight to separate the charges and. move forward with the August trial. purely based on the Robinson alleged. killing, right?" And what did they do? They chose to fight. They chose to sever. it. They won. >> So, appreciate the thoroughness. that took place in that courtroom today. And and so, I'll ask you that was in the. courtroom and then I've read the filings.

to rely on his honor's questions today. and the points that he made. And as you. but most importantly, as our innocent. client, Durk Banks, and I emphasize our. innocent client, Durk Banks, is waiting. We are looking forward to. the close of business today. >> That was Durk Banks' attorney, Drew. Findling, along with other members of. his team, including, by the way, former. Young Thug attorney Brian Steel. Anybody. who followed that case knows him very. well. Again, this is courtesy of Rolling. Stone reporter Nancy Dillon. But this is.

where it gets interesting because the. judge didn't just hand them a big. victory by separating the charges. And. now he's not going to have to face this. at his August case, he basically called. the government out in court. And what he. said, you got to imagine, just stopped. the prosecutors in their tracks. We We. all the filings in this, the motion, the. government's opposition, yes, what the. judge had to say in that courtroom. A. lot of courtroom drama. All right, I got. to say something real quick. Look, we. cover a lot of different dangerous.

situations that are happening in the. world here on Sidebar. One thing that I. don't think people talk enough about is. being part of a data breach. You, your. loved ones, all that private information. is constantly at risk of being leaked, which is why I want all of you to keep. your data safe online. Here's how it. works. Incogni tracks down all of those. old posts and search sites that's. exposing your information, and then they. demand its removal. Look, I was shocked. Turns out databases had all my. information, and within days Incogni was.

taking them down. The setup is super. simple. You just create an account, Incogni's going to do the rest, and. their unlimited plan's custom removals. feature lets you submit specific links. that their privacy experts will. personally investigate and remove. They. can't harm you if they can't find you. Use code sidebar at the link below, get. a 60% discount off an annual plan. That's incogni.com/sidebar. Okay, so want to bring in somebody who. can actually make sense of all this. I'd.

love to see him. Neama Rahmani, former. federal prosecutor, expert in this area. Good to see you, my friend. Thanks for. taking the time. >> Jesse, thanks for having me, as always. This is a big case here in LA. >> Are people talking about it? >> They are. I mean, look, obviously the. music industry, you got the Brian Steel. joining the team, so I think it's going. to get a lot of coverage and press. Obviously federal court, no cameras, but. a lot of folks here have been following. it. Obviously the local press and as. well as the the music industry. This is.

a big one. >> Okay, so I'm happy to have your. perspective on what is a very big. development. Now, I want to get into. this motion that started all of this. So, Durk's lawyers, they filed the. motion to sever, to separate the new. charges from the Los Angeles trial. And. their argument was pretty. straightforward. They said, "Look, they'd been preparing for this LA case, this LA trial for 21 21 months. They. were ready for the August trial and then. less than again 3 months before this. trial, the government drops this third. superseding indictment with all these.

new allegations, these new charges, right? Racketeering. And here's what. they wrote in the motion, quote, because. the last-minute addition of the VICAR. counts imperils Mr. Banks'. constitutionally guaranteed right to a. speedy trial, this court should sever. those counts from the Los Angeles counts. and allow him the prompt trial he has. consistently demanded. The government's. delay in bringing additional charges and. producing evidence in support of those. charges is unjustifiable. Any further. continuance would be of the government's.

sole creation and would warrant. dismissal of the third superseding. indictment. Now, Nima, what's your take. on this? What is the defense actually. saying here? Because the way I. understand is like they have a right to. put the prosecution's feet to the fire. Look, we think our client's innocent. We. want to go to trial. Is it fair that the. government could just throw these new. charges, these new allegations at them. seemingly at the last minute, which. would kind of conflict with his ability. to go to trial? I mean, what do you. think of it? >> Look, I'm as pro-prosecution as they.

come, but I have to go with the defense. on this one and the judge apparently. agreed. Look, he's been in custody for. quite a while now. I think October 2024. The government obviously opposed bail. and the judge agreed with them. So, the fact that you have a defendant in. custody and you have a trial date next. month and you're going to supersede to. add these allegations in another state. involving another murder. I mean, it's a. big problem. You're the defense, you. don't have time to prepare, so you're. sort of stuck in this situation where.

you have to ask for a continuance, right? To be able to prepare your. defense to this whole additional set of. facts and witnesses and allegations. Or. you have to move forward with really one. hand tied behind your back. So, really. superseding at this late hour is going. to be a problem in any type of case, but. especially a case like this where the. additional charges are so serious, they. involve out-of-state conduct and. witnesses. So, what the judge said, "Look, if you really want to do this,

you're going to have to have a separate. trial. You're going to have to do things. in a timely manner." And I agree with. the judge's decision here, guys. >> I think one of the unique aspects of it. is that the defense have pointed out. that the government had already tried to. introduce the Chicago episode, the. Chicago alleged incident earlier in this. case. They had apparently filed a notice. saying they wanted to use that as. evidence of other bad acts, but in. February they withdrew it. They. apparently told the court they were. taking off the table. The defense made. the argument, "Look, the court relied on.

that withdrawal." They cited the judge's. own words from a February hearing, quote, "The severance motion certainly. is not a trivial motion. However, obviously, it would have been. considerably stronger had the Chicago. evidence remained in the case." And then. months later, they say the government. tried to bring it back, not as evidence. of other bad acts this time, but as. direct evidence of a racketeering. enterprise. So, Nima, just again, walk. us through this. Why was this so important for the.

prosecution? We'll talk about their. argument in a minute, but why do you. think it was so important for the. prosecution to introduce this evidence? And why does the defense make such a big. deal about the government withdrawing. the evidence and then bringing it back. later? >> So, there's a couple ways you can get. this type of evidence in, and you talked. about it. You can obviously charge it, right, which was what the government was. trying to do here. Or you can bring it. in through prior bad acts evidence. And. we've talked about it many times. Often. you'll see it for instance in a sexual. assault case, right? You have charged. vic- charged victims, and then you have.

these other victims who say that they. too were sexually assaulted, but for. different reasons, maybe the statute. limitations or other reasons, the. government doesn't charge that conduct, but it can come in to show motive, a. common plan or scheme, right? So, they're saying that Lil Durk here. operated this criminal enterprise, and. they would go after people. >> [snorts]. >> in retaliation, right? So, from the. prosecution's perspective, it's great. The more victims you have, it dirties up. a defendant. It doesn't matter if it's a. sexual assault case or a murder-for-hire.

case, like you have here. So, there's a. reason that the prosecution wants to. present this type of evidence, but. trials have to be fair, so when you're. talking about 404b evidence and. witnesses, the prosecution has to. provide that type of notice to the. defense, and the defense will usually, if they can contest that evidence, and. the judge has to rule, like, is this. really on point? And really, when it. comes to 404b evidence, and again, I'm. talking about other cases, but appellate. courts have been more hesitant recently.

That's the reason the Weinstein first. conviction was overturned on appeal. The. New York Court of Appeal ruled that you. shouldn't have brought all these other. bad acts witnesses. So, you have the. government in the Lil Durk case. providing this notice that we're going. to pre-. present evidence of these other crimes. in other states. Then, they withdrew it, and then they supersede to charge it. So, I think that's part of the problem. there, right? They're going back and. forth, and I think that's the reason the. judge said, "Listen, you can't do this, especially a month before trial.". >> Right, it's too prejudicial, and it's.

not fair, and I think it was. interesting. So, this is per reporting. from Rolling Stone, who I think had the. transcript of what happened in this. hearing. And we're going to talk more. about what the judge said, but US. District Court Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald, who handed Durk this win, said, quote, "You think you will have a. better chance to win if the Chicago. incident is tried with the Los Angeles. murder. It's obvious. You treat that as. a feature, and I treat that as a bug. I'm concerned it's going to be unfair. I'm here to make sure both sides have a. fair trial." Seems like he has a point.

I mean, it seems like the prosecution. wanted to introduce all this evidence. because it would have it would make. their case stronger, but at the same. time, does that acknowledge potential. weaknesses in the prosecution's. murder-for-hire case, the Los Angeles. allegations? >> It does, and part of the challenge here. is a case like this, you're relying a. lot on cooperator testimony. That's. tough if you're the prosecution, but no. question, if you have two murders or. attempted murders instead of one, that's.

going to be a stronger case. The jurors. might disbelieve one, but not the other. And I got to give credit to Rolling. Stone writer Nancy Dillon, the reporter. who was there, who's fantastic. I know. her very well. She's on top of these. cases, so but I think look, Judge. Fitzgerald is right. We're in the 9th. Circuit here, one of the most liberal. circuits in the country. He's thinking, "Listen, it's not just about getting a. conviction, Jesse. It's about making. sure that conviction withstands appeal.". And you know this would be an automatic.

appellate issue if Lil Durk was. convicted and the judge allowed the. prosecution to supersede at the 11th. hour. >> Look, and the defense, they pointed out. the timing of everything, right? The. government filed this third superseding. indictment on June 4th. They mentioned. that this was less than 3 months before. trial. They produced a massive amount of. new discovery. The defense claimed in. their argument, "Look, this discovery. required a 1 TB. hard drive. That's a lot of data to. review in a short amount of time." They. wrote, quote, "The defense is now in a.

position where it has to review, digest, investigate, and be prepared to rebut. terabytes of new data just 2 months out. from trial on a charge carrying a life. sentence. It is untenable." Um and and I. you know, I think about what the. government's argument would be, right? Why did the government wait so long? How. do they justify it? So, the government's. response, because they didn't take this. lying down. They filed a 30-page. opposition saying that the Los Angeles. alleged murder and the Chicago killing.

they were part of the same thing. They're part of the same alleged. racketeering enterprise. That they were. directly connected. That Durk's lawyers. were exaggerating the burden of the new. discovery. Here's what they wrote, quote, "Defendant Bank's sole basis for. severance is that the joinder of the. VICAR charges at the August 20th trial. would imperil his speedy trial rights. That constitutional analysis is. factually and legally unsupported." And.

they also pushed back in the idea that. they'd been sitting on these charges. They said the investigation was ongoing. We know that. I mean, look, investigations are can evolve. And they. said they seized 59 digital devices. They had to review terabytes of data. They pointed out that two co-defendants. in the Chicago case had only pleaded. guilty in April and May of 2026, which. gave them new evidence to work with. Why. are they wrong? Don't charges develop? Don't investigations develop? Doesn't.

new evidence come out? Why are they. wrong here? >> Well, look, obviously things change. But. the reason they're. certainly behind the eight ball legally. is the fact that they're the ones that. control when someone's charged and. arrested. They move for detention. And. the fact that now you're really coming. up on two years later to supersede, even. if it's not the government's fault, it's. not like they're getting sanctioned. You. are prejudicing the defendant here, right? Because now you're putting them. in a position, like I said earlier,

where if you're the defense, you really. have no choice. You have to continue the. trial because they provided all this. discovery at a late phase. And let me. tell you, one thing judges do not like. is when the government produces govern-. produces discovery late. And I'm not. saying they had it and there's any. misconduct, but it is a huge problem. Discovery in a criminal case is. one-sided. You're the government, as. soon as you have it, you got to produce. it. So, now you're opening questions as. to really when did you know? The judges. going to start digging in. And let me.

tell you something, we're talking about. criminal cases, but. I got to draw an analogy to civil cases. So, in civil cases, you can't just file. an amended complaint. You have to get a. stipulation from the other side. There's. a very short window where you can. amend a complaint even in a civil case, right? If you don't get in a stipulation. or agreement from the other side, you. have to get leave of court. So, that's. essentially what's happening here. because an amended complaint, whether. it's civil or criminal, can add. additional charges and allegation, and. it's unfair to the person who's.

defending that complaint to have to do. so within a short period of time before. trial. >> So, let's get to what the really matters. here, right? The judge's ruling. Again, Judge Michael Fitzgerald granted Durk's. motion to sever. He separated counts one. and six from the rest of the indictment. So, that means that the Chicago killing. and the or alleged killing and the. Atlanta alleged attempted murder, that. is not going to be part of the August. trial. So, Durk is going to go to trial.

on the Los Angeles murder-for-hire. charges, just as his lawyers wanted. But, I really have to get into what the. judge did cuz the judge didn't just, you. know, sign an order, move on, no. explanation. He used this hearing to. essentially put the government on blast. He told prosecutors straight to their. faces that he saw exactly what they were. doing. I mentioned one of the quotes. before. Said he wasn't According to. reporting from the Rolling Stone. magazine, the judge said, quote, "This. third superseding indictment. indisputably is just a very clever. attempt at having the Chicago tail wag.

the Los Angeles dog." And the judge said. that it looked like the government was. concerned that it was going to lose. Now, couple things here, Nima. Um A, it's a statement for a judge to say. something like that. I mean, I I know. You have never been called out like that. before, but it's one thing I'm curious. what you think about the judge's. commentary there. And I also have to. wonder. are they even going to move forward with. these other charges? You think so? You. like I mean, are they even going to move. forward with separate trials?

>> I don't think so because you have. potential venue issues, right? So, you. have these other alleged acts. I don't. know what the nexus to the Central. District of California here in Los. Angeles would necessarily be in those. cases. Now, obviously, they could be. prosecuted in Chicago or Atlanta or. elsewhere. So, I think that's just one. issue out the gate. Look, if they win in. LA, it's probably a moot point because. Los. >> Is it double jeopardy? >> I don't necessarily think it's double. jeopardy. The judge mentioned double. jeopardy. I don't think it's double.

jeopardy. There could potentially be an. issue preclusion issue depending on how. granular the jurors get. Again, I was. trying to wrap my head around it. There's really no jeopardy because the. charges have been dismissed. Jeopardy. attaches when, you know, the the jury is. sworn in, that the first witness. testifies. So, they could potentially. bring those cases, but if for some. reason the jurors. return a very detailed verdict that. said, for instance, there's no unlawful. agreement, there's no conspiracy, that.

could potentially be a problem in a. subsequent case charging conspiracy. So, I get depending on what the the findings. are, but usually in these cases it's. guilty not guilty. And and it's. impossible to know the reason for the. not guilty verdict such that it would. prevent the retrial in the subsequent. case. So, I don't think there's a. jeopardy issue. The judge raised it, but. um which was surprising in my opinion, but I think it was mostly him wanting to. blast the prosecution in this case.

>> Let me ask you one final point about. this. So, again, Lil Durk, he's now. headed to trial on August 20th for the. Los Angeles uh murder-for-hire case. The. new charges allegation Chicago, Atlanta, those are severed, maybe sit tried. separately, we'll say. By the way, after. the ruling, Durk's lead attorney, Drew. Findling, released a statement saying, "We are very happy with the court's. order. For 21 months, we have been. unwavering in our commitment to Mr. Banks and his innocence and look forward. to an August 20th, 2026 trial." So, but. before I let you go, how strong do you.

think the prosecution's case is against. him for this alleged murder for hire? >> I think it's pretty strong. Cases like. this really kind of go back to that. cooperator testimony. I really want to. know. how effective the prosecution's been to. flip him. Whenever you talk of any. criminal organization, it can be. Lil Durk's alleged organization, mob, street gangs, cartels, you really need. members of that organization to testify. against those that are most responsible. Now, obviously, you don't want to rely. on rats or snitches by yourself.

Hopefully, you can corroborate that. testimony. I know there's a lot of. electronic evidence, uh text messages and the like here. I. obviously, I like that. If that's the. prosecution's so, if you have cooperator. testimony, you have that corroborated by. independent message evidence like text. messages, I think it's a strong case. But, of course, never count out uh Brian. Steel. He did a great job in the Young. Thug case. So, this is going to be a. heavyweight fight, Jesse. >> All right. Neama Rahmani, love having.

you on. Love explaining it to us. Thank. you so much. >> Thanks, Jesse. Love being on, too. Hope. to be on again real soon. >> 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. [music] us out on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, X, Instagram, my NewsNation show, Jesse [music] Weber. Live, Monday through Friday, 11:00 p.m. Eastern. See you next time, everybody.