← Fame Under Fire
Fame Under Fire
D4vd case shocks as prosecutors reveal new evidence claims
00:28:19
New court filing reveals prosecution allegations against D4vd
Loading summary
Transcript35 lines
- [00:00]
A
This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.
- [00:06]
B
Save on Family Essentials at Safeway and Albertsons this week at Safeway and Albertsons, fresh cut cantaloupe, watermelon, pineapple or melon medley bowls 24 ounces are $5 each and wild caught lobster tails are $4.99 each. Limit eight member price plus selected sizes and varieties of Doritos, Lays, Cheetos, sun chips and Kettle cook chips are $1.99 each. Limit four member price. Hurry in. These deals won't last. Visit Safeway or albertsons.com for more deals and ways to save.
- [00:45]
C
Hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anoushka Matander Dougherty. So a lot has been going on in the Celeste Rivas Hernandez case. We went from hearing virtually nothing to the prosecution basically filing a document setting out their case and their evidence. Now important we've got to remember this. We're only hearing the prosecution at this point. The defense has still to make its case and we will hear it eventually. Just to warn you, some details in this case are graphic and some listeners may find them upsetting, but we are going to go through what the prosecution filed. Reminder the singer David, that's D4VD, has been charged with the murder, dismemberment and continuous sexual abuse of Celeste Rivas Hernandez, whose body was found inside the front trunk of a Tesla linked to the singer linked to David in 2025. He has entered a not guilty plea on all charges. But when he enter that plea, his team asked for a preliminary hearing. Your Honor, we believe the actual evidence will show David Burke did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez, nor was he the cause of her death. And we would like to be able to have the evidence come into the
- [01:52]
A
light of day at the earliest opportunity.
- [01:55]
C
Now that hearing was supposed to happen on the 1st of May, but the defense is asking for more time to review all of the evidence. So the hearing was postponed until Tuesday, May 26. The prosecution filed a public preliminary briefing document and for the first time we can see what evidence they say they have. Joining me to go through all of this is our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent. Hi Sean.
- [02:18]
A
Hey Anushka. How are you guys doing?
- [02:20]
C
We're doing good. I think this has been a bit confusing for everybody. So the briefing that was filed, this publicly filed court document is just the prosecution's case and they are just allegations at the moment. But the defense are getting criticized for asking for a preliminary hearing, stating they want the evidence out and then then saying they need more time. So, Sean, first of all, can you just remind us what a preliminary hearing is and why the prosecution have released this document and why the defense are getting critiqued for what they've done?
- [02:51]
A
Couple of reasons. All right, first, to talk about a preliminary hearing. And it is just that the first word is preliminary. Preliminary. So before a case can go, generally, usually in front of indictment, you've got to prove that you arrested the right person. So the purpose of a preliminary hearing is to prove that the prosecution or the arresting officers had probable cause. And we simplify that. Probable cause just means we really had a good reason to believe that David or the defendant is the person that we believe actually did this. And so what happens is at most preliminary hearings, the arresting officer gets on the stand and lays out the evidence on why we believed, meaning officers, Los Angeles Police Department, that we had a justification of arresting this person. And so they sit there and they present their evidence, they're allowed to be cross examined, they're allowed to be questioned, the evidence is allowed to be challenged, and then it is up to the prosecution. And it is not a high bar, it's not as high as a trial beyond a reasonable doubt. It's really just a good faith, reasonable reason, probable cause, that this person did what they're being accused of. And if they get to that relatively low bar at that point in time, then the case is allowed to go forward. It is allowed to then be presented, if you will. Now, is it rare for a prosecutor before a hearing such as this Anoushka, to give a brief? Yeah, it really is. Now, what they are saying is, my word, there is a cavalcade of evidence, there is a treasure trove, there is a bunch of evidence against David. And so what the submission is is, your honor, we got a preliminary hearing coming up. We want to assist the court so that you're not trying to go through all of this minutiae. We're going to give you this document so you can read it so that you can understand all the evidence so it's not so confusing on the date in question. Realistically, what they're trying to do is make sure they can bias a potential jury panel and let the world know exactly what's going on. And your final part of your question to ask why is the defense getting such a hard time? Well, because by their request, by them asking for this, by them pushing for this, this allowed the prosecution to put this document in front of the world and let them see, do I think a preliminary hearing was necessary in this case. I don't. Manusca. We've discussed the fact that once you request discovery, you're entitled to it. You don't need the preliminary hearing to get it. The defense is getting questioned and getting a hard time because you wanted it, you requested it, now you're getting it, and now it's biting you in the butt.
- [05:30]
C
Well, it is confusing for a lot of people because the document being filed publicly, the judge made the decision not to seal the document. Can you walk me through the judge's reasoning for not sealing that particular document or what you think it might be answered?
- [05:44]
A
You're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, David is a celebrity. And so you'll have people out there saying you are trying to protect celebrities so nothing should be protected. This is a public forum. Let the world know. Now, the problem is that balance you have to be careful with. What the public need to know has to be balanced against David's right to a fair and impartial trial. Myself personally, I believe that second part is more important. And I wish the judge would. I really do. I wish he would have sealed that information. But you can imagine the level fight and so forth that would have happened. My assumption is, from the judge's standpoint is it's going to come out anyway. This preliminary hearing is going to be a public forum. All the information that the prosecution wants to do is going to come out. And then finally, defense attorney, the prosecution have a. They can have a press conference at any point in time. They want to lay out all of these facts out. And it's not like you guys have requested a gag order. So none of the information can come out.
- [06:50]
C
So let's go through some of what they allege they have in the way of evidence. Now I'm going to do this via the charges. So one of the charges that we have is the continuous sexual abuse of. Of a minor. The actual evidence is obviously not included. And that makes even more sense when you know what the evidence is. But they've included a list of what they say they have. So that includes Celeste naked and in sexual acts with David when she was 13, numerous text messages evidencing ongoing sexual relationship between the two, texts about pregnancy, abortion, plan B, contraceptive pill, and then messages they say through March 2025 that prove the defendant continued to manipulate the victim as she mess quote, all we do is have sex and just hang out, man. I want more than that for myself. Sean, we're starting to see more makes up that 40 terabytes of information that the prosecution said they had and that csam. Can you just tell me what. See, Sam is first of all, for
- [07:45]
A
people who don't know, CSAM is the acronym used for child sexual abuse material. It could mean just about anything. But if we take the age of a child and we just do an assumption that we use the age of majority of 18, anything that catches a child in any type of provocative position whatsoever can be considered CSAM child sexual abuse material.
- [08:10]
C
Now, when we spoke previously to understanding what the prosecution alleged that they have, I spoke to you about the charge potentially charging him with sexual abuse of a minor. And we spoke about how difficult that is because the witness to that crime is Celeste, and she has died. So the prosecution are laying out here all the evidence that they say backs that up in that they have the images of Celeste, the text messages. So the briefing says the LAPD robbery and homicide detectives determined the victim, Celeste and defendant David met in January 2022 when she was 11 years old. They began a sexual relationship in November 2023, when the victim was just 13 and the defendant was 18. Now, as part of the. I'm going to call it a story, because there is a story that's being told in this briefing. The story of what they alleged happened to Celeste. Detectives learned the victim had been reported missing to the Riverside County Sheriff's Department by her family, who live in Lake Elsinore in February and April 2024 since, so they say, they telephonically contacted defendant David on February 17, 2024 after they identified a phone number in Celeste's phone records that belonged to him during the call. They say David claimed he had spoken to the victim last on February 13th or 14th, 2024, but stated that he said he was unaware she was a minor or that she had been reported missing. Then, according to the court filing, they go and perform a wellness check at David's house. They say defendant again claimed he was unaware she was a minor and he had only met the victim once in person in November 2023. However, and this I found confusing, defendant showed deputies a yearbook photo of the victim he had on his cell phone, although he claimed to be unaware of where the victim was at the time she returned home two days later. So he says he's unaware she's a minor. According to the prosecution, after the victim returned home, it continues saying in February 2024, her parents took her cell phone away. Then it alleges the defendant drove to Lake Elsinore and paid a junior high school student in the victim's class $1,000 to give the victim a cell phone defendant purchased so they could stay in contact throughout 2024. The victim spent a significant amount of time with the defendant, including summer weekends at his home in the Hollywood Hills and traveling with him to Las Vegas, London and Texas to meet his family. Text exchanges between the victim and defendant contain references, as we heard earlier, to sexual pregnancy, abortion, and the use of Plan B emergency contraceptive. There are also explicit photographs documenting and corroborating their sexual relationship. Now, I'm gonna read the next bit in a second, but I have a few questions. Here we have the allegation of continuous sexual abuse of Celeste, of murdering Celeste, and of unlawfully dismembering her body. These are all allegations. He's pled not guilty on all charges. It's difficult because we've got so much information from one side and nothing from the other. In the story that's being told here by the prosecution, they are that he paid a junior high student £1,000. Now, there's no indication that the minor knew what this was for or that there was something untoward happening. Can this play into either during the trial or if he gets a conviction at sentencing?
- [11:11]
A
If the facts of what the prosecution are laid out, ferret out and come out in trial and then there is a potential conviction, yes. What could end up happening in those situations? Very clearly, and this is what judges have to do. They don't just punish you for the charges that you have been charged with, but the conduct can increase the charges. Let's say, for argument's sake, and this is just an assumption, let's say one of the charges that David is looking at carries between zero and 30 years. So a judge can give him nothing or probation, or he can give him 30 years. Well, the way those judges make the decision on where to go on the spectrum is the other conduct that could be affected. And I could see a judge saying, this charge carries up to 30 years. Mr. Blank, you are the worst that I've seen. Your conduct has affected this life. This life. In this life. Your conduct has affected this person. This person. You were grooming this child since she was the age of 11. Your lawyers have asked for a lenient sentence to the range of 5 to 10 years. But based upon your conduct, I must sentence you to the high end of the 30 years. That's something that could end up happening based on what you have just said, that the court could take everything into consideration. The child, you know, There could be a situation. That child he gave the $1,000 to could be going through some mental issues right now. It's like, I cannot believe as a result of what I did, I could be complicit in this child's death. So all of that could go into consideration when the judge gives a sentence.
- [12:39]
C
And the same question, but for the charge of the continuous sexual abuse of a minor, we have references to him taking her out of the country. Does that increase that as well?
- [12:47]
A
Absolutely. Absolutely. All of this goes in.
- [12:50]
C
There are some other questions raised here, Sean. The Riverside County Sheriff's Office performing that welfare check. Now, there's no inclusion in the briefing of what happened after that welfare check. They say they turn up and David says, I didn't know she was a minor. We do have to ask some questions about their follow up procedure there. Do you just take the defendant at their word that they are not going to continue to contact this minority? Sean, what would you expect in a welfare check?
- [13:17]
A
I would expect much more than what we're being put out, if that makes sense. And again, and that's the problem with only seeing one source of thing without it being cross examined or talked about. But just from what we're looking at, it is very wild to me that we're just seeing, hey, man, you've been messing around with a minor. No. Okay. And they walk away and they never contact again. That is wild. Is that what we're hearing now?
- [13:38]
C
We asked the Riverside County Sheriff's office about their welfare check and whether they followed up or put any protection measures in place, and we haven't had a response back yet. If it comes out at trial that there was nothing else, there were no further checks, nothing else put in place to secure Celeste's welfare. And this is a hypothetical situation, but if you walk those steps down the road, can you see a civil lawsuit come around the corner from the parents saying, if you'd have done your due diligence, we wouldn't be in this situation?
- [14:05]
A
Absolutely. You see two very interesting things that could happen. One, of course, is what you just mentioned, the civil context. You can see them going and say, you are a cog in the chain that caused my daughter to die. Had you done your job, had you done your investigation, had you looked into this very much, you were put on notice of a crime and you did not investigate it in full detail. And had you stopped it on that date, we would not be here right now. 100% can be looked into, into a civil context. Secondly, Anoushka, we have talked about many times. A person's own words will always come back and haunt them. And so at a trial you can see David, there are accusations of course 100% lied about knowing her age. And so this is something that he. And they could bring it up like why would he be lying? He knew what he was doing.
- [14:59]
C
Like I said. We've asked the Riverside County Sheriff's office about whether there was a further welfare check and what they did as a follow up procedure. This is one side of the story. We'll keep saying that. But the story does progress. So they go some way in establishing the sexual abuse of Celeste Rivas Hernandez by David in this briefing. And then they say in November 2024, defendant and the victim broke up, although they continue to communicate and text messages suggest they also continue to have sexual relations. But it goes to the section about the murder. April 23, 2025 they say is the likely date of the victim's death and when all her cellular activity ceased. Remember that's speaking to that 40 terabytes of, of data of information that they have. They say they have the night prior. It continues, April 22, 2025. Defendant and the victim engaged in a lengthy argument described in detail in their text messages. The messages reveal the victim's jealousy over Defendants relationships with other women as defendant led her to believe they had a future together. Now we're getting into the charge the special circumstances around the murder of murder for financial gain. It says quote in the document she became extremely upset and threatened to disclose damaging information about her relationship with defendant to end his career and destroy his life. Defendant's first studio album was due to be released on April 25, 2025. He had an emerging multi million dollar career already in progress. He also had multiple product endorsements which were highly profitable. And then this is what they lay out. At approximately 8:40pm on April 23, 2025, defendants sent an Uber to transport the victim from her Lake Elsinore home to his residence. They before and during her Uber ride, it alleges which dropped her off at defendant's Hollywood hills home around 10 past 10pm at night. At approximately 10:30pm defendants sent text messages to the victim inquiring where she was. Now this then goes into the lying in wait special circumstances as part of the murder charge. Just to warn you, some details in this case are graphic and some listeners may find them upsetting. It says in the document the people, the people of California contend this was part of the defendant's premeditated plan to cover up the murder as she was already lady dead by this time, knowing he had to silence the victim before she ruined his music career. There you have the murder for financial gain. We had to keep the witness to this crime quiet because it would ruin his music career. It alleges as she had threatened very soon after her arrival at his home, defendants stabbed the victim to death multiple times and stood by while she bled out. At no time did he call law enforcement or 911 or take her to an emergency room to attempt to save her life despite knowing she was dead and her family was trying to find her. The evidence will show defendant lied and claimed he didn't know where she was in. Defendant drove to Santa Barbara county immediately after the victim died, attempting to dispose of her property and destroy evidence. At approximately 11:30pm on April 23, 2025, he drove away from his home as he texted and called the victim's phone asking where she was again. These were acts calculated and planned to set up his defense within a very short timeline after the victim's vicious murder. So the document lays out what it alleges are these set of events. And then it says, After April 26, 2025, defendant never attempted to contact her again. Sean, what do you make of that? Because it feels as if a lot of that hinges on the medical examiner's report. We've spoken in length about the medical examiner's report. This whole thing works because the method of the murder is the stabbing. But you don't feel that the medical examiner's report is that strong in determining that that was the cause of death.
- [18:38]
A
The link in the chain in this one that they really need to make sense is the medical examiner's report proving the cause of death. And when you look at when the medical examiners report. I'm not saying that it's not a good report. It is very nebulous. You know, our medical examiners are experts. They are allowed to give expert, succinct opinions. And when we put experts on the stand initial, we want them to speak in expertise. We want them to look at the jury and say, this is how she died. This is when it happened. This is the weapon that caused it. The person who did it would have had to do this. Because when you're talking to a jury, they want to be like, those are facts. The problem when you read this medical examiner report is it doesn't speak in conclusory factual statements, which an expert is allowed to do. Let's make this clear. They're not just giving their random opinion like me or like someone on TikTok, they're allowed to give their opinion as a medical examiner. When you read this report, they use language as this person may have died this way, but because the body was so badly decomposing so bad, like to the point we couldn't tell the young lady's eye color, we're having trouble making a determination. So we, what it really says is we think this is what happened. We believe that there is two cause wounds, two injury wounds that came inside of this body. One of them would have punctured the liver, but because when a body dies, the liver naturally degrades anyway. And so it's very difficult, if not impossible for us to make a very strong conclusory statement. And so when you read the medical report, it says things such as, we don't know the time, we don't know the location, we're not 100% positive of the cause. And there's one line in the medical examiner's report, if I'm not mistaken, Anushka, you might have it in front of you that says, I reserve the right to change my mind if a better cause comes out later. Which is very difficult because that to me is the most important part of this case is did he kill her? And that could be one of the challenges.
- [20:46]
C
And there is some of those language. It says, quote, there are two penetrating wounds of the torso with smooth edges that may represent sharp force injuries. And it's that may language where you can see, see the defendant's team starting to pick away at that because a lot of this hinges on the manner of her death. However, there is the other charge we've been through the continuous sexual abuse of the minor, we've been through the lying in wait, the, the murder for financial gain. But there is the unlawful dismemberment of human remains, which is a separate charge. Now in the way of evidence, this is what the prosecution allege they have in this briefing, which is one sided, but they say, quote, tellingly, defendant subsequently purchased tools to carry out his plot to dismember and dispose of the victim' body. On April 24, 2025, defendant ordered a shovel from Home Depot that was delivered to his home from Postmates. On May 1, 2025, defendant ordered. And subsequently Amazon delivered two chainsaws to his home. On May 5, 2025, defendant ordered and Amazon subsequently delivered a body bag, heavy duty laundry bags and a blue inflatable pool to his home. They say he made these purchases under the fake name Victoria Mendez. Now, on the 8th of May, 2025, defendant returned to the same area in Santa Barbar, leaving his home around 11:30pm he returned to the area again on May 31, 2025. This is an isolated site off SR 154, where the victim's identification was subsequently discovered in January 2026. Sean, it also says that he ordered on Amazon a burn cage. I didn't even know it was possible to order these things to your home. Yeah, under the same name. It alleges as part of his plan to incinerate evidence. Moreover, defendant took horrifying measures to destroy and discard the victim's body. After placing her body into the blue inflatable pool to prevent her blood from spilling onto his garage floor, defendants used a chainsaw and perhaps other tools to cut off her limbs. Small plastic blue fragments were found embedded in the victim's remains, which were collected by the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Department. The fragments were analyzed by the LAPD's Forensic Science Division and Trace Analysis Unit. An expert was able to make a physical fit match from the blue fragments to the blue inflatable pool purchased by the defendant. Sean, there is, if you take the prosecution's word as fact, and at the moment, it's just that side. There is a whole load of evidence here to back up the unlawful dismemberment of human remains. I mean, this is almost a digital diary of evidence.
- [23:17]
A
It is. And now, again, I'm not saying yes, I'm not saying no, we have not looked at anything. But if you go back and you read and we talked about prosecutors, if they can lay out a story, and if you read a lot of it, a lot of it is creative storytelling. Again, I'm not saying it's not accurate, but those are the things that you're not going to be able to do in front of a jury. Because these are not things. Like, there are certain parts of that pretrial brief initiative. If you read it, they talk for David, knowing that he was doing this, he must have blank. Well, you wouldn't know these things without talking to him. These are assumptions that prosecutors are making and putting and brief. Do you understand what I'm saying? Like, if you read it, there's a line where he says he had to do this because of blank. He must have done this because of blank. Well, these aren't things that you would normally know. And so that's why we have to be careful reading this brief as if they are facts. Because if you read it, it is a creative story. It is a Closing argument is what you're reading, but it is not necessarily facts that will be presented in front of the jury. All that being said, even if they weren't doing creative storytelling, just laying out the evidence as you're talking about is damning. Just laying out the evidence. Because even though David does not have the burden, even though he is not required to say a word, even though it is incumbent upon to state to prove his guilt, not to prove his innocence, he is going to have to explain, why in the world are you ordering chainsaws to your residence, burn cages to your residence, body bags to your residence? And it just so happens that the individual who came to your house from an Uber you ordered showed up dead in your Tesla.
- [25:08]
C
But look, like you say, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. We've heard from David Burke's attorneys. They've said, quote, the actual evidence in this case will show that David Burke did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez and he was not the cause of her death. Death. We will vigorously defend David's innocence. In the last sort of section of the story from the prosecution, they allege that surveillance video and other evidence confirmed defendant was the last person to drive the vehicle. That's the Tesla on July 29, 2025, before he left Los Angeles on a concert tour. So my question to you, Sean, is like you say, they've laid out a story here, and they say they have digital evidence that basically provides the infrastructure that they're basing their theory on. The theory of death. Right, the theory of this murder. Would an efficient defense be to present another theory, another criminal, another cause of Celeste's death, or are they not allowed to do that?
- [26:02]
A
What a great question. You have just got into a nuance in the law that not a lot of people talk about. Defendants are not allowed to randomly point to somebody else. You're simply just not allowed to do it. What you have to do is, if you're going to point to somebody else, the case law generally says it must be inconsistent with the defendant's guilt to be allowed to come into trial. Meaning it must. You must literally, in a weird way to say it, solve the crime and prove that somebody else actually did it. You cannot just speculate and say, well, how do we know it wasn't blank? You just can't randomly do that.
- [26:40]
C
And the other party here, who we haven't heard from much, is the family. But there has been some online speculation about whether they were receiving money from David. There's been absolutely no evidence submitted that this was the case but they did release a statement to Rolling Stone. Celeste's father, Jesus Revis, flatly rejected online speculation that the musician paid the family to gain their trust or silence, saying, quote, I never had any contact with this guy and we haven't received any money from him or anyone in his family. And we know they were supposed to speak after that initial press briefing that we had from the DA's office in, in Los Angeles. But it's now emerged that they would just too distraught by the they've said grisly details that were coming out to actually gather the strength to get up and speak. I know that the prosecution are asking for a Speedy trial within 60 days. I don't know if that's going to be possible with 40 terabytes of information to change hands. But of course, the investigation itself took seven months. So I can totally see why they want a trial to happen quickly. And we will, of course, follow this case. Sean, thank you for coming on today and this guy.
- [27:37]
A
Appreciate y' all so much. Thank you for having me.
- [27:42]
C
That was our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Matan de Doughty. As always, if you've got any questions, send them to us on social media. It's Anushkamd. Or you can WhatsApp us on 03306-78114. That's 03306-78114. Make sure you subscribe and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a video.
- [28:11]
A
I'm Noel Titheridge and for BBC Radio 4 from Shadow World. This is impulsive. What happens when someone's personality changes completely?
- [28:23]
C
It was completely out of character. Never done it before, never done it since.
- [28:27]
A
And it's because of a prescription drug.
- [28:30]
C
I asked myself, yourself, why would you do such a thing? What were you thinking?
- [28:35]
A
I've been uncovering the shocking side effects linked to medications called dopamine agonists for BBC Radio 4 from Shadow World. This is impulsive. Subscribe to Shadow World Impulsive now on BBC Sounds.
- [29:00]
B
Save on family essentials at Safeway and Albertsons. This week at Safeway and Albertsons. Fresh cut cantaloupe, watermelon, pineapple or melon medley bowls. 24 ounces are $5 each and wild caught lobster tails are $4.99 each. Limit eight member price, plus selected sizes and varieties of Doritos, Lays, Cheetos, Sun Chips and Kettle cook chips are $1.99 each. Limit 4 member price price Hurry in these deals won't last. Visit Safeway or albertsons.com for more deals and ways to save.