← Crime Stories with Nancy Grace
Loading summary
Transcript37 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is an Iheart podcast, guaranteed human crime stories with Nancy Grace. Breaking news bombshell, State vs D4VD, aka David Anthony Burke, as it relates to the death of a little teen girl, Celeste Rivas, found in the trunk of D4VD David Anthony Burke's Tesla. What's taking so long? But now we have seen a court document that says State versus David Anthony Burke. You know about that secret grand jury proceeding that was just an investigative tool looking into the death of Celeste Rivas? No. David Anthony Burke is named as the official defendant. Good evening, I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. I want to thank you for being with us. Joining us, an all star panel to make sense of what we are learning right now. But I've got it in front of me. Dave Mack, explain what we found.
- [01:09]
B
Well, when you look at this, at the documentation from the state of California, Nancy flat out says something that we've long thought was the case, but it actually the bombshell, the people of the state of California versus David Anthony Burke. See, we thought it was just an investigation because that's what they said, an investigation into the death of Celeste Rivas Hernandez. However, this document proves beyond a shadow of a doubt legal paperwork that says the state of California versus David Anthony Burke.
- [01:50]
A
Now, what's interesting in this particular court document and what it is, is an appeal to the court of appeals there in Texas. The reason it's in Texas is because his family, Burke's family is in Texas and they are appealing a subpoena to come to the grand jury. Now, the title of that document is in the court of appeals for the first district of Texas and In re Dawood Burke. Okay, what does that mean in the matter of Dawoud Burke, but in a footnote, in a footnote in this document, you see the people of the state of California versus David Burke. Okay, I'm going to get back to everything else we are learning, but I'm going to go straight out to a veteran trial lawyer. Joanna Nieves is joining us from California. Criminal defense attorney and founder of the Nieves law firm. Joanna, thank you for being with us. So this is what's happening to my understanding. And you jump in, Joanna. The family of D4VD David Anthony Burke pronounced as David has been subpoenaed the whole family to testify in a grand jury proceeding regarding the death of Celeste Rivas, the little girl that found in Burke's trunk. Let's see, that Tesla, it was parked in spot to spot to spot on a posh street there in California until It was finally towed at the behest of one of the homeowners days sitting at the tow lot, and it started a stench. Why? Because Celeste Rivas was decomposing in the trunk, we were told. There is an investigative grand jury. Nevis, I believe you will agree with me that grand juries have two tools. One a charging tool to indict people and one an investigation tool. For instance, in the JonBenet Ramsey case. In the Ramsey case, the grand jury met, and they met and they met and they met, investigating JonBenet's death. They ultimately did issue an indictment, but that case was not prosecuted. So a grand jury can meet to investigate. They have subpoena power. They can bring in witnesses, or they can charge. We were told this was an investigation into Celeste's death. Now we have an official court document filed by the parents contesting them having to come from Texas to California to testify in State v. David Anthony Burke. So a case against him, a case investigating him, does exist. Explain what's happening, Joanna.
- [04:37]
C
Right, Nancy. So I do believe that it does outline what the target of this investigation is. It's not just trying to uncover who it may be and get more information. Obviously, they're trying to focus their energies on identifying incriminating information against this particular person that's named in the footnote there in the charging document. Assuming that that was cited properly, I would guess that they took that from the grand jury subpoena that was received. The filing itself, I think, is kind of more procedural. Right. They're in Texas, this is happening in California, and it's their. Their attempt to say, you know what? I don't really feel like California can drag me over there based on this subpoena. And I want a court to say that, yes, absolutely, you have to. You have the authority to. To make me come and testify. So I think it's kind of like one of those procedural things where you're contesting the validity of a confidential informant or you're contesting the validity of a warrant or the validity of a search. They're really just saying, hey, just make sure that you really do have the arms reach to make me come from Texas to California. Here.
- [05:45]
A
Specifically, what they are arguing, it is Dawood Burke, the father, D. Forfidi's mother, Colleen, and. And his brother Caleb, all summoned to testify at a California grand jury. Now, they are contesting that, claiming their rights have been violated. Why do they claim their rights were violated? They claim that they were given redacted versions of affidavits that were used in the court order summoning them to. To be witnesses. Okay. Really, Celeste? A little girl, a teen girl decomposing, and their son's Tesla. And they're claiming their rights were violated. Silent here because the affidavit supporting that warrant, that subpoena for them had a name redacted. That's the leg they're standing on. Good luck.
- [06:51]
C
I think we see this pretty often, though, like, hey, you, there are rules that you have to follow. There is information that we need. Give me proper notice. That's the basis of so many arguments when I. Even when I just mentioned, like, a confidential informant. Oftentimes that kind of objection to the information is based on not being able to see what was in the affidavit that was drafted by. By the police officer or even when contesting a search warrant. We see this pretty often. So I don't think that they are making absurd arguments. I do think they are just trying to protect their interests and, of course, the interests of their son at this point, because he's still innocent until proven guilty.
- [07:29]
A
I was waiting for you to say that. But this is not an adjudication of guilt or innocence. This is telling a witness, you must come to the grand jury. And yes, notice must be proper. In other words, they have to be served with subpoena properly. There has to be a date, a location, the name of the matter to which they will testify. But the fact that names have been redacted in the affidavit. They don't even have to see an affidavit. All right, but they do have an affidavit to support the subpoena. The fact that they got noticed correctly, There is the name of the matter to which they will end up testifying to. That's what they need. It was registered. It was certified. Bam. They don't need to know the state's case, and they don't need to know sensitive information such as names that are in the affidavit. That is not required under the law. Yes, you're right. They have to have notice. Yes, you're right. They have to know what the matter is on which they will testify, but that's it. So they don't have a leg to stand on. But I'm very curious. Let's talk about privilege, such as attorney client privilege. I'm sure that your clients speak very openly with you. They may even confess. They may prejudice themselves in front of you because you're their trusted lawyer and your duty is. Or you will be disbarred if you violate the attorney client privilege, right? The rest of your life, you may not speak of it. That's the duty of a lawyer. I have the same duty. So you got the attorney client privilege. You've got priest parishioner privilege, such as what you tell to your preacher, your priest, your count, your religious counselor, your rabbi. That cannot be forced in court. The rabbi, the priest cannot be forced to divulge what the defendant said. You've got husband, wife privilege. There are several privileges, but he's my daddy ain't one of them, Nieves.
- [09:46]
C
No, for sure. But, you know, I do think there's word that David's dad does have some. Some type of affiliation with the church. And I do wonder whether or not he may take some stand that his son. What did you just say to him from that perspective?
- [10:05]
A
I thought you were going to hit me with the fact that his father's a lawyer so he could try to use attorney client privilege.
- [10:12]
C
His dad is a lawyer, but you're going.
- [10:14]
A
He has an affiliation with the church. What affiliation would that be? He drives by it on Sunday mornings.
- [10:20]
C
You know, and here, all of this is all reported, right? It's reported that he's some type of reverend with the church.
- [10:27]
A
Okay, you know what? There's a reason you win so many cases. See, she's smart, she's articulate, and she says things like that, and you almost believe it. He has some affiliation with a church. You just said that. Okay, so you're going from the angle that it is a priest parishioner privilege, is that correct?
- [10:55]
C
It's an angle. I don't know that they're really actually going to go with it, but maybe some of the conversations that have happened, if there really is this sort of affiliation, could fall under those protections. No, he doesn't have a father son privilege, and maybe he has consulted his father in an attorney client way, but we do know that he is.
- [11:16]
A
I shouldn't have given you that idea. I gave her. I gave her a bounce. She's running with it. Okay, so. Well, you know what? You're not half wrong, Joanna. As much grief as I'm giving you, remember when Rosie Greer, the football player, went and counseled O.J. simpson behind bars, and according to the sheriff, Simpson confessed. That was kept away from the jury under the same theory you're using right now. Greer was some kind of a counselor or pastor, some affiliation with the church.
- [11:48]
C
And.
- [11:48]
A
And it worked. The jury never heard that O.J. simpson confession. So you know what? Maybe he has a leg to stand on with the dad, but what about the mom, Colleen, and the brother? Okay, I can't wait to hear this. Did they drive by the church on Sunday morning, too?
- [12:03]
C
Well, you know, here's the thing with that. We really don't know how much they know. They're living in another state. David is living in California. I mean, what do they know that he's hanging out with Celeste? Do they really have any details about whether or not there was a relationship? I'm still waiting to hear proof or some sort of evidence that he was in a relationship that was inappropriate, besides contributing to the delinquency of a minor and, you know, maybe doing drugs and drinking alcohol, which we can kind of gather from these photos. So there may have been an inappropriate relation to the extent that he was doing things that he should not have been doing, like engaging in abuses of substances, giving her alcohol. But whether or not there was a sexual relationship, we don't know that. I have heard no reportings besides suspicions that there's any proof regarding that.
- [13:03]
A
Crime stories with Nancy Grace. Steve Fisher joining me right now. Now, the man of the hour. He is a missing persons private investigator, search and rescue specialist, and he was hired by the owner of the mansion where D4VD was living to basically find out what the hey happened. Could you refresh Joanna Nieves recollection regarding the relationship that you have cobbled together through photos? I know you were not in the room when any alleged sex activity occurred, which would be statutory rape. She's a child. But you've seen a lot of photos. You even recovered a photo stick that the LAPD left behind in their wisdom. Tell me what relationship, based on the photos that you have seen and what you have learned, what was the relationship between D4VD and this little girl? See, Celeste Rivas.
- [14:10]
D
Well, I'm certain that one thing that's become very apparent is he was aware when cameras around and, and he made her aware of not to be in front of the camera. It's, it's very, very apparent because, you know, she's captured in so few, you know, photos, although we know we have other evidence to link her there. And. But is there direct evidence? I mean, I think it's, this is one thing that's worried me about this case is that because it's at the very highest level, the, of the, the DA's office. These are the, the DAs that prosecute, you know, homicides and stuff. Will they, if they can't meet that threshold, will they go after the sex crimes? I don't know. I don't Know if they will. And that. That worries me when he.
- [15:00]
A
I can tell you right now they won't.
- [15:02]
D
Yeah, right.
- [15:03]
A
I can tell you right now that sex assault will likely not be part of the claims against D4VD, aka David Anthony Burke. And this is why Celeste is dead. Anthony will. David Anthony Burke will likely never take the stand. And without any DNA from her body or her eyewitness testimony as a victim, it won't be. You can't prove it. If there is a witness that walked in on them in any sex act, maybe they've got a leg to stand on. Okay. And there were so many people in and out of that house, as you know, that may very well have happened. If anyone ever saw him kiss her on the mouth, if there are any texts that surface romantic or sexual text between them, we may be able to get a charge on indecent exposure, lewd act. But the state doesn't want to include account that is weak because it will then dilute a murder charge or a homicide charge if it's not murder one. I would not put that in my indictment. If I were indicting this case, I might believe it, I might know it to be true. But unless I have a witness that can tell me they observed D4VD having full on sex with Celeste Rivas, I would not put that in the indictment. If I've got someone or text proving something else, kissing, fondling, sexual text, anything like that, I would go with delinquency to a minor or child molestation or lewd acts. I wouldn't do anything that would dilute the most important charge and that would be homicide. In fact, I believe I would have one count of homicide if I were prosecuting this case. Maybe account of mutilation to a corpse, which means hiding the corpse, burying the corpse, tampering with the corpse, because those are going to be provable according to reports. Now, Steve Fisher, we've got this document proving in a footnote, you have to read it very carefully, that there is a grand jury investigation, State v. David Anthony Burke. What you're seeing right there is from the family contesting their subpoenas. We can only imagine what he may have told them, what they know about this case, but they're going to have to testify. Just because you move to a different state or you are in a different state does not mean you don't have to testify in front of a grand jury. Now, Steve Fisher, bring me up to date with your latest findings.
- [18:00]
D
We had the news of the car being saved from going to Auction at the very last minute. We were hoping to take a look at that, and that didn't happen. These photos you're showing now, we. We released these photos to kind of show. There's a couple reasons for this. We wanted to show some of the people that were around a lot, and they appear in this photo. We believe Celeste is also just off frame here. And. And also, you know, we talked about the phone right there that's shows that it's on. Connected to the WI fi system of the house. And we did this because we wanted to let everybody. We've heard. I've heard recently that there's a few people that still are not cooperating and. Or aren't being fully truthful. And I think it's important that people realize that there are things like the WI fi router at the house that's going to log exactly when they were connected to that router and, you know, what days and what times and things like that. So we just thought it might be important for those people to think about, and maybe it's time to be fully truthful about, you know, who was. Who was there and who was there.
- [19:13]
A
I'm sorry, hold on. You cut out on me. You're saying that the LAPD can mine the WI fi connections in the home from the time they believe Celeste began living there until her death, and they can determine who was in the home and. And get those cell numbers, connect those cell numbers to owners and then get witnesses? Is that what you just said?
- [19:35]
D
If. If they did the forensics on the router. You know, we don't have that type of relationship with LAPD where they're telling us exactly what they've done. These are things that we're throwing out there, hoping that they are being done, because we think they're very important, especially if there's a Fisher.
- [19:53]
A
You're absolutely right. But I want to talk to you about a Neo, AKA Neo the Asian, AKA hiding under mommy's bed in another jurisdiction, refusing to come to the grand jury. Guess what? He was arrested and brought to the grand jury. So if D4BD's family doesn't want the same treatment, they better hop on over to that California grand jury and start talking. Tell me what you know about Neo the Asian. His words, not mine, brought into the grand jury. Did he go to grand jury? Steve Fisher showed up at that building.
- [20:34]
D
They showed the prosecutor arriving at that building. He was only in there, they say, 30 to 40 minutes. The only thing that I can infer from that, and I don't have any inside information on this but I have to believe that he pleads the fifth because there's not, I can't believe there's a 30 or 40 minute by the time you would arrive, get sworn in all that, you know, they don't. He's got a lot more information than 30 or 40 minutes worth. I would hope so. I think he pleaded the Fifth and which is obviously his right to do so. And, but as a, as a non lawyer I can look at that and say well that says something to me, you know and well, you're right.
- [21:14]
A
Steve Fisher, that timing cannot be denied. D4VD's friend. D4VD's seemingly best friend, Neo Langston did appear in front of an L A grand jury and the investigation into the death of Celeste Rivas. He was arrested for failure to appear. He was dragged back. He did go into the grand jury. The 23 year old was at the courthouse this past Wednesday. A grand jury as you know, convened since November investigating this. But he didn't stay long, about 40 minutes and then left the courthouse refusing to answer questions as he left. Now we tried to get a comment from the deputy district attorney Silverman who was presenting the case to the grand jury. No good, wouldn't talk. Agree, don't blame her. But I do believe that Steve Fisher is correct. Straight back out to our friend Joanna Nieves, veteran trial lawyer in this jurisdiction. You know what, fine. If you don't want to testify, you can be put on as a co defendant on that indictment, real simple. Or you can be an unnamed co conspirator or I'm very surprised the state didn't do this, Joanna. Give him immunity and make him testify. Because the reason you take the fifth amendment right to remain silent is because it could hurt you at your upcoming trial. But if the state says okay, you have immunity, like you know, you're immune from the flu or you get the COVID vaccine, you're immune, you think same thing, you are not going to try you. And if we're not going to try you, then you don't get to take the Fifth. I'm very surprised. What do you think, Joanna?
- [23:05]
C
I agree with you, Nancy. I mean as a lawyer I would have been talking to my client beforehand, talking to the district attorney and negotiating some type of immunity deal to protect his interest. And so that also leaves that opening of like okay, if he really went in there and the fifth or why didn't that occur ahead of time. But maybe they just had some very straightforward cross examination questions like Some very. Or, I'm sorry, investigative questions where he. They're getting their yes and no answers. And this is all I wanted from that witness. And leaving the door open to pursue something later on if they need to. I just. I do find it confounding that they would not have negotiated something prior to him going in there.
- [23:55]
A
How about this, Joanna? Maybe they put him up and tried to get him to testify without an immunity deal in place, and then when he wouldn't, then they had to go meet Converse, decide whether or not to grant him immunity or to charge him, because. Put Steve Fisher up, please. Steve Fisher. You went before LAPD did. You thought of it before they did, and you executed it before they did. You went to all the neighbors and you got their ring cam, their doorbell cam, and we see how important that is in the Nancy Guthrie disappearance, right? How valuable that is. And you got video of someone moving the 4 BD's Tesla around, we believe, with Celeste's body in the trunk. And you. You're telling me tonight that it was or was not Neo Langston?
- [24:54]
D
Oh, I'm not saying either of those. You know I can't do that. Here's. Here's the. The. You know the problem with the surveillance in that neighborhood. The car was there. I mean, this. She was in that trunk for months. And that overrides. And so although there's a lot of cameras in that neighborhood and there's a lot of surveillance to get, some of it doesn't go back far enough and from other angles.
- [25:22]
A
Let me see Steve Fisher again. Steve, I had no idea you could do the backstroke so well. Isn't it true that you told me. You told me you saw the face at least once of a person moving the Tesla?
- [25:42]
D
Yes.
- [25:44]
A
Okay. That's all. No further questions. But you're not telling me. And I understand that. But I'm going to keep asking. Dave Mack. Have we missed anything? Neo Langston appears at the grand jury, apparently takes the Fifth. I believe Steve Fisher and Joanna Nevis are exactly correct. He may be named as an undicted co Spirit conspirator. He may be not named and given immunity in exchange for his testimony. The family refusing. The family of D4VD David Anthony Burke refusing to honor a subpoena. I've got advice for them. As a lawyer. Not that you need it, because Mr. Burke is a lawyer. Either hightail it over to grand jury in your own car, or you can ride in the back of a sheriff's deputy. The. Those are the choices. Have we missed anything?
- [26:35]
B
No. You got everything. Nancy, the one thing that we talked about yesterday was about what we actually saw at the very last lines of the documentation yesterday, and that is this. The people of the State of California versus David Anthony Burke. That's our bottom line. We actually know that it's not just an investigation into the death of Celeste. It actually is an investigation of David Anthony Burke.
- [27:02]
A
If you know or think you know anything about the death of this little girl, Celeste Rivas Hernandez, please dial 213-486-6890. Thank you to our guests for being with us, but especially to you for joining us in our search for justice for Celeste. Nancy Grace signing off. I'll see you tomorrow night. And until then, good night, friend.