← Fame Under Fire
Fame Under Fire
D4vd charged with murder after Celeste Rivas Hernandez case update
00:23:44
D4vd pleads not guilty after murder and abuse charges
Loading summary
Transcript42 lines
- [00:00]
Sean Kent
This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK
- [00:07]
VRBoCare Advertiser
day or night. VRBoCare is here 24, 7 to help make every part of your stay seamless. If anything comes up or you simply need a little guidance, support is ready whenever you reach out. From the moment you book to the moment you head home. We're here to help things run smoothly because a great trip starts with the right support. And hey, a good playlist doesn't hurt either.
- [00:37]
Sean Kent
Yes you can. A five minute quick and easy calorie burning workout. Give it a try. Come join our sweat sesh on TikTok.
- [00:55]
Anushka Matandadawati
Hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire with me, Anushka Matandadawati. David that's spelled D4VD. The singer, real name David Anthony Burke, has been charged with the murder of 14 year old Celeste Rivas Hernandez seven months after her body was found in the front trunk of a Tesla linked to the singer. Now we've done an episode on this before, going through all the background. If you're new to this unfolding story, I would recommend starting there. But a warning for that episode and this episode. The details of this case are graphic and some listeners might find them upsetting. On 16 April, David was arrested in Hollywood around 4.30pm this is according to the Los Angeles Police Department. He was held without bail over the weekend and we were all waiting to see if the District Attorney's office had enough evidence to officially charge him. Now, On Monday morning, the 20th of April, the District Attorney for Los Angeles, Nathan Hockman, gave a live press conference announcing that David had been officially charged with three separate offenses, including first degree murder, continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 and the unlawful mutilation of remains.
- [01:54]
Nathan Hockman
Today I am announcing the charge direct against David Anthony Burke, the musician known as David spelled D F in connection with the brutal and horrific murder of Celeste, a 14 year old at that time. These charges include the most serious charges that a DA's office can bring, that is first degree murder with special circumstances. The special circumstances being lying in wait, committing this crime for financial gain, or murdering a witness in an investigation. These special circumstances carry with it, along with the first degree murder charge, a maximum sentence of life without the possibility of parole or the death penalty. The determination on whether or not the District Attorney's office will seek the death penalty will be made at a later time.
- [02:51]
Anushka Matandadawati
Later that same day, David entered a not guilty plea on all counts. Now we reached out to his attorneys and they told us this, 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. We will vigorously defend David's innocence. The DA's office outline in their press release that David is, of course, presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law. They also made clear that, quote, if convicted as charged, Burke faces death or life in state prison without the possibility of a parole. A decision on whether to seek the death penalty will be made at a later date. Now, in the criminal complaint from the Superior Court of the State of California, which you can view on the website of the District Attorney's office, it says that, quote, david Anthony Burke personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon or weapons, which they describe as a sharp instrument. Joining me now to go through everything is our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent. Hi, Sean.
- [03:43]
Sean Kent
Hey, Anushka. How are you guys doing?
- [03:45]
Anushka Matandadawati
Sean, the case has received so much attention. Of course, David is very successful. He's got 22 million monthly listeners on Spotify. But also because of the condition Celeste's body was found in, her body was dismembered and placed in two cadaver bags, which were left for months in the front trunk of a Tesla linked to the Singer. However, realistically, we've had very little detail from the DA office or LAPD as to what they think happened until now. We have these charges, but these charges tell a story. So I want to start with the first charge of first degree murder with special circumstances. Those special circumstances are lying in wait. Use of a deadly weapon, murder for financial gain, and the murder of a witness to prevent testimony. Let's just go to basics. First of all, what exactly is first degree murder, and what's the relevance of the special circumstances?
- [04:29]
Sean Kent
As you're aware, every state in the United States are their own separate jurisdictions. And so every state has their different laws and different versions. And so we call them first degree murder in some situations. We call them murder in other cases. Everybody calls it something different. Murder is the unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought. Now, in California, they upgraded, they call it first degree murder, and they do them by way of degrees. Now, let's be honest. Murder is murder. But there are some times that murders are so heinous, they're so disgusting, they shock the conscience in such a way that a state, depending on what state you are, has the right to take your life and has a right to give you a life sentence. So in California, they have charging with first degree murder with special circumstances, meaning that if they prove the murder has occurred under one of the three special circumstances, that they have enunciated. And it can be any one of the three, then they have the right to seek the death penalty and. Or a life sentence. And those three special circumstances are exactly what you have just said. And now there's a bunch of circumstances that you can get on certain cases in California that can make this determination. This district attorney just said, we believe there are three here that can elevate this crime to such a level that we believe that he has forfeited his right to live.
- [05:47]
Anushka Matandadawati
And those special circumstances, they really give us an idea of what they think took place. Can you just talk through what story they tell?
- [05:55]
Sean Kent
And again, this is the district attorney's story. I'm not saying this is what has happened or anything of this nature, but anybody watching the press conference, and it doesn't have to be somebody as a lawyer, but anybody with common sense watching the press conference can tell the story that the district attorney is planning on telling a jury at some point in time, if anything. You saw their opening statement. And so what they basically have said, and this is my assumption from watching this press conference, is that this young lady, this little girl who was 14 years old, 13 at the time, ran away from home or left home however you want to. Cause it went over the David's house. David was lying in wait. What lying and wait means you are waiting. That's where we get that premeditation. You have a plan. You are hiding behind a bush. You are hiding somewhere. You're in the house, you have a plan to attack somebody. That is the line in wait doesn't mean necessarily you're hiding, but you are preparing for them to come inside because you have a premeditated plan to kill that person. The second part of their story is the second circumstance of aggravation is for financial gain. The second part of the story is David is a very large singer. He is making money off of his reputation. He is making money off of his Persona. And so what they're saying is the reason you are lying and waiting, killing this person is because this person can hurt your financial status. If the third circumstance of aggravation comes out, you are engaged in an unlawful sexual relationship with a child. And if this comes out, it will hurt your financial status in the community. People will stop listening to your albums. All of a sudden people have a problem with you. You can run the risk of getting arrested. And that's what that third part is, that this young lady is a witness to your abhorrent behavior. And not only she's the witness, she is the person. And so the theory is this little girl could come out and tell the world that I am involved in a sexual relationship with her, and this will hurt my ability to make a money. So they're saying that David killed her. That was a plan. She's hurting me. She is a child. That's why, according to Los Angeles County, I have forfeited my right to live. And that's why we should have a right to seek the death penalty. That's the story that I heard from the press conference yesterday.
- [08:09]
Anushka Matandadawati
And because it's a bit confusing, when you first hear the charges, you think, murder for financial gain, he was going to get paid for killing her. And then you hear witness to a crime. So she saw him do something else, but she's witnessing the crime committed against her, the alleged crime committed against her.
- [08:22]
Sean Kent
She would be the witness, like she would be the witness that they would have. So if she has not passed, if she was still alive, the number one witness against David would be her. Were you engaged in a sexual relationship with him? Yes. How old were you at the time? Yes. They wouldn't get into consent, they wouldn't get into whether you wanted it. And there would be a situation where she wouldn't have the ability not to testify because she could be compelled to testify. And so she would be the number one witness. And not only the things she says on the stand, but if you watch the press conference, they talked about metadata, they talked about information, they talked about technology. So any information that she has ever posted, anything inside of her phone, any picture she has, any. Any videos she has done, would all be able to be utilized against him at trial, which would make her, if these charges are true, the number one witness against him.
- [09:16]
Anushka Matandadawati
And let's remember, David has entered a not guilty plea and has repeatedly denied the allegations. But I want to drill down on the. The sexual abuse of a minor because I've been seeing some comments on social media. I know you've received some as well, people saying, we knew. Yeah, you're bowing your head. I know where this is going to go, Sean, because it's a frustrating comment. But for people who are unaware, they say there are videos of Celeste and David together, and this was a consensual relationship. So this doesn't make any sense. Sean, just explain how that's not even a possibility.
- [09:44]
Sean Kent
It is just not. And even as a criminal defense attorney, I think, Anishka, we've told this story. I'm a former prosecutor. I prosecuted these types of cases, and we had those situations when children and let's say it again, children would get on the stand and say, I was in a relationship. I gave it to this person. I wanted to do this stuff. I. And this is going to sound awful, but it is true. You do not have the ability under a specific age to consent. You cannot, in a weird way, and this sounds awful, the state of South Carolina, the state of California, they own you in a weird way until you hit to a certain age because they have a duty to protect you. Your frontal cortex has not fully developed until you get to a certain age. So a 13 or 14 year old, even though they think they can, do not have the mental capacity to consent to a relationship with an adult. And for these reasons, when these individuals, and I've had them in my direct messages saying, Mr. Kent, you have gotten this wrong. This was a consensual relationship. It is impossible to be a consensual relationship. If we go back to the Diddy case, one of the things we kept talking about was if the federal government would have indicted him for doing anything with children, if they had that information, which they clearly did not, then they would not have to prove consent. And so in this situation, you do not have to prove consent when you're dealing with someone under a specific age. The reason I say a specific age is every state in the United States is different, but the one thing they all agree to is 13, 14 is way too young.
- [11:15]
Anushka Matandadawati
And then the specific reference to sexual abuse of a child under 14 years old, why reference 14? What's the relevance?
- [11:21]
Sean Kent
The relevance to that is, and every state is the same in that way. What we do is we look at children in age ranges. The penalties get significantly larger depending on how young a child is, as they should. Most legislators in that situation look at the age range of a child to determine the level of penalty that we are looking at. And so that's why when they said they, like this child is under 14, which is increases the penalty that David will be looking at if he was found guilty.
- [11:53]
Anushka Matandadawati
And we have this story being told and we've heard from the DA's office. Celeste's family was supposed to speak afterwards, but then they declined to comment. But it is being reported that they made a statement saying they are committed to ensuring that Celeste's voice is heard. And it's also being reported that upon learning of David's arrest, Celeste's father, Jesus Rivas, said, thank God, justice for Celeste. And this was echoed repeatedly during the press conference that we will get justice for Celeste. We will get justice and we can glean some more about what they are alleging took place and when it happened, from when they say the crimes were committed. Because there's a list of crimes. Now, the d. A said quite clearly, this is every parent's nightmare. They say on April 23, 2025, David invited Celeste to his home and she was never seen again. But we can see from the dates on the complaint that David is alleged to have killed Celeste on the 23rd and then mutilated her body on the 5th of May. So it didn't all happen at the same time. Sean, is there a world in which he could say, okay, the mutilation took place, but nothing else did? And would that carry the same amount of weight? This is a theoretical sorry, because he has entered a not guilty plea. But is there a sit? Theoretically, absolutely.
- [12:58]
Sean Kent
But none of us know the evidence that the state of california has against David. But if we are to make the assumption, and these are strong assumptions, and we can put this together, we can cobble this together by looking at the statement of his defense team. Because if you read the statement of his defense team, they are very specific. They had nothing to do with the death of this young lady. The statement does not say, I was not in a relationship with this young lady or something of that nature. So you can see a situation in which David would take the stand and say, yes, I was involved in a sexual relationship with a child. I should be punished for that. However, I did not cause her death blank or I did these things, but I'm not the person who caused her death.
- [13:50]
Anushka Matandadawati
Now, David has been arraigned, and he pled not guilty to all three counts, so every single one of them.
- [13:55]
David Burke's Attorney
And counsel, on behalf of your client, do you waive formal reading of the complaint? Advisement of rights, including armed forces and veterans rights, Enter a plea of not guilty, denying any and all special allegations, enhancements and priorities. Yes, your honor.
- [14:09]
Anushka Matandadawati
And they are asking for a preliminary hearing. We're going to get into what that means later. Outside of what we heard at the press conference, there has been continued criticism that it took so long to arrest David. I mean, the Internet claimed to have sold. Solved the case months and months ago. I mean, the Internet is not qualified to solve the case. But everyone was saying, we knew this, we knew this. We could have told you this. At the press conference, the BBC asked why did it take so long to make an arrest? And Hoffman said, there are difficulties in interviewing multiple people, Some of whom are cooperative and some of whom are not. And looking at all the evidence, it's the type of case that you want to get maximum information, he said. He also highlighted that it's difficult when you don't have a single piece of evidence, one single piece that proves the crime. You have to reconstruct it from multiple pieces of evidence. We've heard there about witness testimony being one way to. But we also heard about digital evidence. Sean, what exactly does he mean by that?
- [14:58]
Sean Kent
Well, digital evidence is the following, and we'll hear about it more and more at the trial. But what he's basically saying is everybody leaves a digital footprint, whether you believe it or not. We're in the age where people think they can erase things. And we hear about the cloud. It is almost impossible to erase anything that you have done. Anytime you're sitting at home and your Alexa randomly cuts on and asks you a question, or anytime you're talking to a friend and all of a sudden your Instagram feed starts talking about shoes that you've been looking at. We have a digital footprint that exists everywhere. And so specifically, if Celeste Rivas was making post, if she was taking pictures, I'm sure they have gotten their phones. They have gotten David's phone. They have seen his geo tracking, they have seen where he was. They are able to put together all of this information and they're going to be testifying. They're going to look at his phone records and say the following. I can assure you I've seen it. Celeste's phone was active at this point in time. The last time she made any contact was at this point in time. David's phone puts him in direct contact in the same room with her when she made her last contact whatsoever. Then her phone went silent, never to be used again. Our Apple phones have a pedal meter. They can tell you the last time that Celeste was walking with her phone. If you've ever noticed, your Apple ID and your heart rate will talk about when you are walking and how many steps they utilize this stuff. They will also utilize the following. If she had an iPhone, this was the last time her phone was unlocked and it was used. This is an individual who's 14 years old who uses her phone 24 7. And all of a sudden on the 23rd at 11:15, it locked and was never opened again. And it just so happened that David Burke's iPhone puts him in the same time utilizing cell phone data. This is the digital footprint that we know. This is the case that they will be trying to put together.
- [16:49]
Anushka Matandadawati
We've had the arraignment and we heard about David's perspective On that, his lawyers were saying, we want the evidence out in the public. We want people to know, because we believe that evidence proves that he is not guilty.
- [17:00]
David Burke's Attorney
We believe that Mr. Burke is entitled at the earliest opportunity to an open preliminary hearing, and the proceedings not be done in secret. So we are asking for a preliminary hearing to be set at the earliest possible date on the tenth day. 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 light of day at the earliest opportunity in order to establish that. We're asking for April 23rd as a three of ten. Your honor.
- [17:46]
Sean Kent
Anything from the people, we'll be very
- [17:49]
Anushka Matandadawati
happy to put on the evidence that
- [17:52]
David Burke's Attorney
we collected in this case in the last several months.
- [17:56]
Anushka Matandadawati
This is why I asked you about the digital evidence, because what went back and forth is we want this preliminary hearing. We're going to get into what that means in a second. But the people. The people of California. Is that how I say it, Sean? The people of.
- [18:07]
Sean Kent
Yes, yes, absolutely perfect.
- [18:09]
Anushka Matandadawati
But the people of California, the prosecution side, they said, well, we've actually got 40 terabytes of information, so you can have a preliminary hearing, but you're probably not going to have all of the discovery by then, Sean. When I'm hearing preliminary hearing, which they've. They are asking for to take place within 10 days of these charges being filed, to me, it kind of just sounds like a mini trial. If we're going to be talking about evidence, we're going to be talking about their perspectives on things. How is it different?
- [18:34]
Sean Kent
You. You hit the nail on the head. And that's one of the things that I think is very interesting. I want to look into this a little bit more, but California is a little different. And this can bear with me a little bit. California is a little bit different in that the prosecutor has two avenues in which they can bring formal charges against somebody. So let's not fool ourselves. An arrest is not the formal charging of somebody. An arrest is just an arrest. After you are arrested, it is now incumbent on the state, wherever you are, to formally bring the charges with you. Basically, cops arrest, and then prosecutors make the determination should your case go in front of a jury. And there are two processes in which this can be done in California grand jury, and if the grand jury does it, they do an indictment, or you can go the preliminary hearing route. And that's when we get what's called the complaint. The prosecutor Giving a formal complaint. As we have noticed a lot, the grand jury system in California is quiet. And this is important distinction to make sure we understand because we're again piling on David and saying, the prosecutor's case is so great. But the grand jury process in California and in almost every state is silent. Because Los Angeles county is such a big county, they're required to have 23 members of this grand jury. These are random citizens who are picked, they're given subpoenas, and then they are sitting inside of a room. What's important about the grand jury process that people do not understand out there is in this room is just the prosecutor, law enforcement, and any witnesses. These witnesses and the prosecutor. The prosecutor leads the grand jury. That's it. The defense attorney is not there. David is not there, and they're not allowed to be there. These processes are private and no one's allowed to discuss. So I want you to think about it. The prosecutor is in there telling his case to these 23 people. He is then telling these people the strongest case they have. They then bring all of these witnesses in front of these people and say, this is the case. So it's one side of the story that the grand jury is hearing. And then at the end, the grand jury makes a decision whether or not there is enough to formally go forward with an indictment so that he can go to trial. My understanding is they weren't able to get an indictment from a grand jury originally is what we're hearing. I'm not saying that specifically, but what we're hearing. But if that's true, think about the evidence, then that one side was able to present their case and they were not able to get an indictment. The second process is what we call the preliminary hearing. That's another way to do it. So in other words, the first way we do it with the grand jury is so it's secretive and so that we don't necessarily get all the information out. And we do this a lot in high profile cases so prosecutors don't hurt their cases. The more reasonable way that we do it is what you're seeing now is the preliminary hearing. You're formally arrested. After you're arrested, the defense gets an opportunity because he hasn't been indicted yet, they have 10 days usually to request the preliminary hearing. In Some states, It's 10 days to have it at the preliminary hearing. This is a public spectacle. This is where the defense attorney is allowed to be there. They're allowed to ask questions. They're allowed to point out the inconsistencies in the state's case. A judge is hearing this evidence, and the job of the prosecution is to prove that they have probable cause that David is the person who committed these crimes. Not beyond a reasonable doubt, but probable cause that David is the person. That there was a reasonable reason why they arrested David. Like, what is their theory? That David has been arrested for all of these charges. And that's why the state is saying, look, there's a bunch of information. You're not going to have it. And the defense is saying, we don't care. Have this. You just had a grand jury hearing and you were able to put a bunch of information. We now want the public to know this case is not as good as you are telling the world it is. I'm sorry, I went a little bit longer, but it's important to understand that it's into two things.
- [22:31]
Anushka Matandadawati
Yeah, it is really important because all we've been hearing about is this grand jury calling witnesses. His best friend, for instance, was called, who they seem to have now fallen out. And we know they were speaking to people. We know that they asked David's dad to come and testify. That's what got it released that he was the, quote, target in those documents that he filed. Trying to fight against that. Now both sides, both David's attorneys and the people of California both said, we are happy to do this in the public. David's attorney, attorneys obviously said, we want all the information out there to prove that he is innocent. And the people responded saying, we are more than happy to do that, but obviously said, you won't have all of the discovery. They then spoke a little bit at the arraignment about the coroner's report. This has been a key point of tension in this case. Why do we not have the coroner's report? And we learned in the press conference that it wasn't released because they wanted true testimony from the witnesses being called by the grand jury. And there's now a motion to unseal the coroner's report. So that should be coming. It's not out at the moment, at the time of recording, but they did ask for that. So by the preliminary hearing, they should know the full details of the coroner's report. And we, of course, will bring all of that to you. Sean, thank you so much for coming on today.
- [23:32]
Sean Kent
Thank you so much for having me. Much appreciated.
- [23:35]
Anushka Matandadawati
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, Anoushka Mutandadawaty. As always. If you've got any questions, send them to us on social media or you can WhatsApp us on 0330678114 that's 0330678114 and as always, make sure you subscribe. Subscribe and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing.
- [23:59]
David Burke's Attorney
I told my dad stop immediately. This is a scam.
- [24:02]
Anushka Matandadawati
Scam Secrets with me, Shari Val.
- [24:05]
David Burke's Attorney
He had actually paid £209,000 to the scammers.
- [24:09]
Anushka Matandadawati
Each week we expose a different scam in detail to help you spot the red flags. I'll say things like I carried on with it and I got. Great returns with special insights from experts including criminologists and a former scammer who now works to help prevent fraud.
- [24:26]
Sean Kent
When it's successful, it completely wipes people out.
- [24:30]
Anushka Matandadawati
Scam Secrets from BBC Radio 4. Listen now on BBC Sounds.
- [24:40]
VRBoCare Advertiser
With Verbal's last minute deals, you can save over $50 on your spring getaway. So whether it's a mountain escape with friends, a family week at the beach or sightseeing in a new city, there's still time to get great discounts. Book your next day now. Average savings $72.00 select homes only.