D4vd Preliminary Hearing: Wrap-up - Fame Under Fire: The Tupac Murder Trial

Loading summary

Transcript61 lines

[00:00]
Sean Kent
This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.
[00:06]
Advertisement Voice
Pop quiz. What's in your kid's lunchbox? At Whole Foods Market, they've already done the studying. Over 300 food ingredients are banned from their shelves. No hydrogenated fats in the peanut butter and no high fructose corn syrup in the cookies. And for sandwiches, there are no synthetic nitrates or nitrites in any of their deli meat. So. So you can pack lunch boxes with peace of mind. Get back to school. Ready at Whole Foods Market. Grainger knows when you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners. Lights about to fail, filters ready to clog. H Vac on its last leg. If you wait until something breaks, you're already behind. Count on Granger for quality products, easy reordering and 24. 7 support. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
[01:06]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Mutandadawati. The preliminary hearing of singer David has finished and we now know his arraignment is on the 31st of August and he has the right to a speedy trial. So within 90 days of that. Now, a reminder to David is accused of the murder, unlawful dismemberment and continuous sexual abuse of 14 year old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, whose body was found decomposing in the front trunk of a Tesla linked to him. Warning. The details of this case are graphic and some listeners may find them upsetting. Now, David has entered a not guilty plea on all charges and his attorneys have previously told us that, quote, the actual evidence in this case will show that David Burke, that's his real name, did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez and he was not the cause of her death. We will vigorously defend David's innocence.
[01:50]
Sean Kent
Now.
[01:50]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Joining me today is not our wonderful Los Angeles court reporter Sam Mulek, but somebody called Sean Kent.
[01:59]
Sean Kent
Hi, Sean. Welcome to the program. Yeah, I just feel replaced. I'm hurt. I'm going through withdrawal. And I'm just happy that I was able to get back on the team.
[02:07]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Sean broke up with us. He said he never wanted to see us again. And then he disappeared and we couldn't
[02:11]
Sean Kent
get hold of him.
[02:13]
Anushka Mutandadawati
It's good to be back. Yeah. If everyone's sending messages going, where's Sean? Here he is. He's been doing, I'm here in a Very big court case in South Carolina. But we knew we had to get you on to go through this. Sean, we've been doing this pretty much since it was released that David was a, quote, target of the grand jury. Now we know this is officially going to make its way to trial. There are a few things that we want to go over. That welfare check that's coming up over and over again, that bothers me the
[02:40]
Sean Kent
most because these are vulnerable adults. We count on law enforcement, we count on officers, we count on the system protecting children, adults and animals. And so when you literally have a welfare check going to somebody's house and saying, we have information that you might have been engaged in a relationship with somebody who's under a specific age and it doesn't go further, that's a problem. And that's something that could lead to a potential civil lawsuit down the road. I know that doesn't seem important now, and it probably doesn't seem important to the family now, but. But there will be, down the road, somebody who makes a comment, had you done your job, we wouldn't be in this situation. Had you stopped. This presupposes David's guilt. And I'm not saying that right now because he's still innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying if down the road, if, if, if, if, if down the road there is a conviction and David is convicted and more information comes out, I can see a situation where someone says, had law enforcement done their job, had the welfare check work, had he been stopped at this point in time, we wouldn't have gone here. And so you could see a lawsuit coming.
[03:42]
Anushka Mutandadawati
And that could be against what? The family? Against the state.
[03:45]
Sean Kent
That could be against the state. Exactly. The state who did the welfare check saying they didn't do their job, they have checks and balances they're supposed to do. They didn't do their job properly, they can bring a lawsuit. Now, is it going to be multimillion dollars? Probably not, because those lawsuits are limited in the amount of money you can sue a state.
[03:59]
Anushka Mutandadawati
But it's something that's interesting. If, say, if you were a parent, either David's parents or Celeste's parents, and you had an inkling that something was going on, that something untoward was happening, do you have, like, a leg duty to investigate that?
[04:14]
Sean Kent
Investigate is a strong word because, believe it or not, parents are not what are called mandatory reporters, but a parent, you have a duty to your child, and that's what I talked about. You have an unlawful conduct towards your child standard. And what happens in this, in the law is if law enforcement comes in and says you are putting your child in a dangerous situation and that's what we have, those welfare checks. That's the exact point of it. So if somebody reports, let's say for argument's sake, the following happens. A child goes to school, they have marks on their body, they look very thin, they are dirty, they are not eating. Well, the school is a mandatory reporter. The school has a duty to contact welfare dss, whoever's agency is in that state and say there's something wrong with this child. The agency has a duty. Then go to the parent and check. And when they check the parent, if they've done something wrong, then they can bring a lawsuit. And they don't necessarily say you have a duty to tell us you're doing something wrong. You have a duty not to hurt your dang child.
[05:13]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Okay, well, let's keep talking about mandatory reporters because what came out during those text messages was the allegation that Celeste was pregnant and had an abortion and that she perhaps felt forced to do so. That's the allegation from the prosecution. And a big question there is how on earth does a 14 year old, 13, 14 year old have an abortion without parental consent? Is it incumbent upon the abortion clinic to then mandatory report to the police? What are the rules in California?
[05:38]
Sean Kent
The rules are going to be the same almost everywhere. First you have to start with the assumption that there are HIPAA privacy laws that we've talked about. HIPAA laws protect the fact that these clinics at these places cannot just go and give your information. If you're 18, 19, 20, they cannot give adult information. And this goes with any medical provider. The difference is when we're dealing with children, when you're dealing with someone under a specific age, if the clinic, if the association knows there's something happening with, they have a duty the same way that I talked about with the school. They are a mandatory reporter under statute that they must go to their agencies, DSS law enforcement, and say, look, there is a 13 year old child in here having an abortion. By definition that's statutory rape. That is a crime. We are reporting a crime that has happened. We cannot avoid it. We're going to do it. I don't know. Again, I don't know the facts of this scenario. I do not know what happened. I don't know if she had parental consent. I don't know if she went in there with a fake id. I do not know. I'm just telling you generically. It is very Strange to assume that a 13 year old can go into a clinic without giving proper ID in the clinic, not trigger. And have to report them to somebody. That's why.
[06:52]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Right. So it comes down into what documentation she might have shown when she was in there. We did have mentions of fake IDs throughout the preliminary hearing, although the defense did jump in and say that that evidence hadn't been actually entered in yet. So I'm sure we'll hear more about that as we move towards trial. I've got a really good question here from Gloria. She says, I've been wondering what happens in a trial. Let's say the prosecution discover new information the day before they go into court. But said information was not mentioned during the preliminary hearing. Assuming this new info is not known to the defense because of such short notice, is it still admissible to court? And she's put in brackets. I was thinking of a miraculous discovery of a murder weapon mid trial.
[07:27]
Sean Kent
I'm going to say it. Don't you give me a hard time.
[07:30]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Should we do it together?
[07:33]
Sean Kent
That is a great question. That is a great question for so many reasons. Everyone out there in Cartoon Land, ignore all the stuff you see on TV that at the last moment they say, we found it, you, Honor. We found the murder weapon. 30 seconds before the witness gets off the stand. Stop. Let me say it louder.
[07:54]
Miles Bonner
Stop.
[07:55]
Sean Kent
It doesn't happen that way. And it would be inadmissible.
[07:58]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Okay.
[07:59]
Sean Kent
There are rules, and they're called discovery. Discovery requires the state to turn over all of the evidence in their possession within a specific period of time before the trial occurs. Why? Because this is not Perry Mason. This is not movies. We do not want surprises. And the court doesn't want surprises. They don't want them either way. The State is not required to tell the world all of their evidence. So even though we are watching it, they don't have to put it all out there. Now, they are required to give all of that to the defense attorneys. And the defense attorneys are not required to tell everybody everything. My gut reaction is you did not see the entire trial. You did not see the entire caviclade Anushka of evidence. You did not see all of it at once. What you did is you saw enough that they thought was necessary. One, to get past probable cause. And I think they could have done that in 37 minutes. But two, enough to influence a jury is what I think they were really trying to do to show we have a strong case. But yes, if the murder weapon showed up during trial, the defense would Ask for a continuance, they would get it. The prosecution would ask for a continuance, they would get it. Because there's so much testing, so much other stuff that has to go on. If they even have a hint of where the murder weapon is, I promise you, the defense knows, the prosecution knows. But no. Stop watching movies. No, no, no, no, no. It does not happen. But I do love that question.
[09:25]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Got another great question here from Anthea on Instagram.
[09:28]
Sean Kent
Hi, Anthea.
[09:30]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Why do we keep saying the Tesla is linked to David rather than saying it belonged to him or he owned it? So we've been really careful with the language that we use around this story with the Tesla being linked rather than, this was absolutely David's car. Because we don't know what the defense are going to say. And if they're going to introduce the idea that, yeah, it was in his name, but 55 people drove it. Yeah, it was. It was an artist car.
[09:50]
Sean Kent
Yeah.
[09:50]
Anushka Mutandadawati
It was also driven by his security guard, etc. So we are waiting to see what they're going to say about that. We can say that the car was registered to him and also that the prosecution claimed that they have seen CCTV footage that prove he was the last person to drive it. Remember, they said that he drove it to Ross's, that he drove it to Santa Barbara, and they have all of this on camera. But the use of the word linked is because we just do not know what the defense are going to come out and say. And so for us to say it was absolutely 100% David's car is us making a determination on, on the evidence, on the facts of who had access to that vehicle. Sean, do you want to add anything to that?
[10:24]
Sean Kent
There are defense lawyers everywhere in America just clapping on that because that is the perfect way to say it. Linked to. And the court of public opinion has 100% convicted. David. Let's be honest. We've looked at social media, we've seen what it is. And the court of public defendant has said he killed her. Maybe he did. Okay, I'm not saying he did. I'm not saying he didn't. But you cannot make that gigantic jump in the court of law with all of the breadcrumbs of evidence, because one of the major things is we do not know. Whether you say it or not, you do not know at this point in time, from what we've all watched, how she died. I know. And don't come at me and say, well, the medical examiner, when I say how she died, who put the Final wound inside of her. What happened inside of that residence, Is the defense going to be self defense? And so when we use phrases like link, the law does not allow us to guess. The law does not allow us to assume. And so what happens a lot that we watch in social media is people put the breadcrumbs together and they say, it was her, his car. He put her in the trunk. He must have put her in the trunk because he was the only one. If you catch yourself using phrases such as he must have, we believe, I think that's not evidence. A lot of times I must get in trial. What I do to officers when I get them on the stand and I think they're doing what people do is I'll say the following, officer, without using phrases such as it must have, we believe, I assume, what evidence do you have that blank did this? And they just pause and they're like, well. And that's the question you need to watch as a listener. If you're saying it must have, I believe we assume, then you don't have evidence. The evidence is we have a witness who saw this. The DNA says this. The video camera saws this. So I love the fact that the BBC is using the phrase link to gold star from Marcus.
[12:21]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Gold star from Marcus. I wonder if anyone gets these references.
[12:25]
Sean Kent
No.
[12:25]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Do you not think?
[12:26]
Sean Kent
No.
[12:27]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Okay. You need to get into the Eddie Murphy filmography and catch up. So for anyone who was with us through Diddy, everybody was quite surprised that he was not convicted on all three charges, that he was only convicted of transportation for prostitution because the court of public opinion had decided that he was. Well, they'd kind of decided that he was the devil and a witch and also a necrophiliac and all manner of other things. But another question that I've been thinking, thinking about a lot, and I've seen it come up online, is the fact that the defense have started to put forward the idea that Celeste misrepresented her age, that she said she was 16 and sometimes 18 to David. And then we have this crime of the continuous sexual abuse of a minor under 14 years old. Allegation from the prosecution.
[13:08]
Advertisement Voice
If.
[13:08]
Anushka Mutandadawati
If there's a world in which they were engaged in a sexual relationship but David believes she was of age, does that mean he can still get convicted of that?
[13:15]
Sean Kent
So it's something that people don't really understand. And it's interesting generally. I'm going to talk very generally. In the United States of America, mistake of age is not a defense. And the reason that it is Is you do not want to have an individual coming in there and saying the sentence that we all hear. I thought she was blank years old. I believed she was blank years old. Now there's the case. It's called People vs Hernandez. And it says every now and then you can use mistake of age as a defense, but what it is, is it takes what's called a reasonable person standard. A reasonable person in that shoes, in that position, Would they actually believe that the person was under a specific age? And then it talks about some of the stuff in this situation. Did they give a fake id? Would a reasonable person believe it? Did they give text message saying they are a specific age? Sound familiar? Did they tell this person, do they hold themselves out to be of a specific age? There's an exception in People vs. Hernandez. They say all of this, but nine times out of 10, they say, yeah, none of this matters if the person's under 14. You know what I'm saying? So they say they do all this reasonable standard, but there's at some point in time, they do employ a common sense test. They're like, the person is 14, okay? The person is 13. That I think is going to be a challenge. Would a reasonable person believe that Celeste was under or over a specific age? And let's not put on our. We hear the age and we're making an assumption. We have to do a critical look at the evidence from David's standpoint as a reasonable person. Would there be anything in David's standpoint that would trigger that she was under the age of first 18, then 16, and then 14? And I know you said, why would you take those age classifications? Because that's what the court is going to do. Would a reasonable person in this position believe she was over 18? Most people would say no. But what if she said she was? And then you ask questions such like this, well, didn't you go to her school to pick her up? Wouldn't a reasonable person know not to go to her school? The text messages. You have to go through all of that standard and try to figure out. But generally, mistake of age is not a defense. A client cannot come in and say, I thought she was this age. Courts most likely will say no. And in South Carolina, we can't even utilize that unless you have very, very, very, very specific reasons to believe. Why, like, you met her in an adult chat room that says you must be over the age of 18 to get in. That's something where an adult only would think those situations.
[15:48]
Anushka Mutandadawati
And of course, the prosecution alleged that they. They met on Discord when she was 11. They also alleged that he paid her classmates to give her a phone after her phone was confiscated by her parents. So there are lots of different avenues that they could take to try and show that he was aware of her age. And I should keep reiterating, we're in the world of what possibilities here and theories that we have about what the defense and what the prosecution might say at trial, but we just don't know. Can we just go over why there is that sort of line in the sand there for the age of 14 years old? Why. Why is that specified in law?
[16:22]
Sean Kent
And I want to give you the. The background and the real reason. I mean, and they're both about the same, the background. Of course, when you talk about children in general, the rules are not complicated. They have not developed abilities, they have not developed their frontal cortex to make decisions as we would assume normal adult. We talk about the rules of 7 that people develop in ages of 7. Somebody from 0 to 7 develops in a very specific way. 7 to 14 develops in a very specific way. 14 to 21 develops in a very specific way. And a lot of our rules are based on those developmental patterns. And Anushka, a lot of times the criminal penalties are higher, depending on what range you fall into. And so that's a lot of times when people say, well, why is the criminal penalty between somebody zero to seven higher than between seven to 14? Well, one, yes. Ew. It sounds nasty. But more importantly, what it is is that developmental age that they're more susceptible at certain ages. And so we're in that 7 to 14 age range that we're saying that Celeste is in. The courts have universally said at this age they are more susceptible, they're easily influenced, and they are not allowed to make their decisions. And you also have to be careful. Once you get to that 13 to 14, you're able to leave easier, able to go by yourself easier. That's usually the age range where parents trust you to be able to go do things. Those are the age range where people are starting to get their cell phones. And so that 7 to 14 range, it's easier. I'm going to say this, and I am not accusing David, and I'm not talking specifically about Celeste, but at that 7 to 14, that's when our pedophiles have an easier access to get to those individuals. So those are the ones we protect when we get a little older. That's where the penalties are a little bit different, and that's where the Courts are just like, all right, would a reasonable person believe this 15, 16 year old is 18, 19, 20? And that's where those laws change a little bit.
[18:16]
Anushka Mutandadawati
But it's not just that she is under the age of 14. Also the nature of the allegation being continuous because they don't have to prove specific sexual acts tied to specific dates. They just need to prove that sexual conduct occurred at least three times over three months. Is that correct?
[18:30]
Sean Kent
Three times over a three month period of time?
[18:32]
Advertisement Voice
Yeah.
[18:32]
Anushka Mutandadawati
We don't know a lot, but we have started to see a little bit some of the legal routes that the defense might be taking in their closing arguments. Not so much through their cross examination, because they didn't do that much, but in the closing arguments, we started to see perhaps what they could argue at trial. Can you just walk us through that, Sean?
[18:48]
Sean Kent
I think we saw a very strong glimpse at what the defense is. And what they're going to do, it appears, is to be not necessarily going on the offensive, but to be attacking little elements of what the prosecution is trying to do. They have charged David first. Let's start with murder. Murder In California carries 25 years. Now if it's done with a weapon or something of this nature, it increases by one year. I think it turns into 26 years. And more importantly, if they have special circumstances, that's when he starts looking at a life sentence. And so it appears as though the first thing that the defense appears to be doing is getting rid of those special circumstances. One of the first special circumstances when you talk to murder, murder is the intentional killing of another being with malice aforethought. The biggest issue with that is premeditation. In California, they're saying that one of their circumstances of aggravation is he laid in wait. Basically, he trapped her, tricked her, was waiting behind a bush for her to come in because this was a plan to kill her. You could see from the defense's questions and from the text messages that they brought in that they are making the suggestion that David was not planning for her to come over. He did not want her to come over. He told her many times not to come over, and she was pushing this. So one of their things is going to be, how in the world could I be laying in wait when she was the one, she was the aggressor of coming over to our residence? I'm not saying that's strong or not strong, but you can see that that's a part of the defense to one of the situations is this was done for financial Gain that he was doing this to make sure that he didn't lose his career, that he was worried that she was going to come out and tell the world about him. When they went through the text messages, there's two things that are strong about this. One, she never threatened to out him to the law. I think one of the text messages said, I'm going to tell my daddy lies about you. So one of the things would be he would not be worried about her destroying his career. Number two would be the fact that he would not be worried. This is a possible defense strategy about the world finding out. Because as far as he's concerned, the world already knew about the relationship. And then the last you can see a defense that they're trying to say one or two things. Did she stab herself? I think that's unrealistic. But they offered text messages potentially of this child's violence, possibly being bipolar, threatening David's life in the past, wanting to come to the residence, being very angry that he might have been in a relationship with somebody else, there might have been a series of disagreements or fight before them in the past. He could get on the stand and say, she came over, she got very angry, she was very jealous. She came at me, a fight incurred. I didn't want to kill her. This is what ended up happening. Yes, I ordered chainsaws and all of this other stuff, but it wasn't offered before she was dead. I ordered this stuff afterwards and I panicked because I knew it was going to end my career and I did a bunch of stupid stuff. So he could admit to a lot of it and say that this would happen because there's only two people inside of the house. But that means he would have to testify.
[21:44]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Oh, he would have to testify to do that. They couldn't present that theory without him
[21:47]
Sean Kent
because to prove self defense, every state's a little bit different. But I will tell you, if he's going to offer, offer that theory, he 1000% would have to testify. Because in self defense, one of the crucial elements is a reasonable person, meaning you, David, was in reasonable fear of your life and you reacted the way you had to. So he would have to explain to a jury why this small child, I think at autopsy was 78 pounds. Give her best case scenario 90 pounds. But David is also a small person. But why were you so fearful of her you felt it was necessary to kill? You must testify to get the fear element in or a judge will not give you that charge. So you were in a place that you had a Lawful right to be. You did nothing to bring on the difficulty is the second thing. And you were in reasonable fear of your life when you did this situation. And so those are things. He would have to testify, not as lawyers. He would have to get on stand. And two, we always find that when you're making these type of strong allegations, the client is the one who has a look directly in the jury and say, I did it, but this is why.
[22:52]
Anushka Mutandadawati
And then, of course, the text messages that they bring in on the final day that she was already angry about his relationship with another person called Asia. Yep, I see where you're going with that. There was commentary within the courtroom that they were dirtying up the witness, and that was something that they shouldn't be doing. It was kind of immoral. But I think you're going to tell me as a criminal defense. Yeah, here we go.
[23:10]
Sean Kent
I hate when people say that. I hate that. They're like, oh, they're dirtying up the witness. David is on trial for his life. Whether you like it or not, David's on trial for his life.
[23:19]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Well, we know we have that arraignment on the 31st of August. Could he still. Could he decide to plea there? Yes, but he won't be given a plea deal.
[23:28]
Sean Kent
He will not. Like, here's the thing. You can never stop anybody from saying, I want to plea straight up. I don't want a recommendation. I want to plead guilty. I want to be done with this. Absolutely you can. So, yes, a plea is still in the realm of possibility. Do I believe it's going to happen? No, not because David would not be looking for a deal, but I do not believe the state would offer.
[23:50]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Yeah, I mean, considering there's still sort of. The question of the death penalty is yet to be answered. Nathan Hockman didn't press us saying we haven't decided yet. Still on the table, what do you think? A trial within 90 days of August 31, a speedy trial.
[24:04]
Sean Kent
Would I be shocked?
[24:05]
Miles Bonner
Yes.
[24:06]
Sean Kent
Could it happen? Because here's the thing. From the state's position, I mean, that is a quick trial. It really is. 90 days is quick from arraignment. But from the state's position, you know what they're thinking. You just saw our case. We're ready to go. We could go tomorrow. The defense will be the ones who are saying, judge, we need more time. This prelim took a long time. We have experts we need to consult. We need to go through the evidence. I think they will ask for at least one containment.
[24:28]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Well, given the fact that during the preliminary hearing, the defense were photographing bits of evidence they said they didn't have access to, maybe that's an indication that this is going to take a lot longer. Yeah, and terabytes. And terabytes of information, which was more than we had for the Diddy trial. Yeah, I think that's a fair prediction to make.
[24:46]
Sean Kent
I mean, this is an awful case and I don't want anyone to think I'm making light of it. It is beyond sad. I don't know what David did, what he didn't do, but a child lost their life. And it's so disturbing. And so I don't want anyone to think we're making light of what has happened because it is, it is a, it is a sad case, but we still have to look at it in a practical legal aspect on what's going on.
[25:06]
Anushka Mutandadawati
And just a reminder, David has entered a not guilty plea on all charges, and his attorneys have previously said that the actual evidence will prove that he did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez, nor was he the cause of her death. Sean, thank you so much for joining us.
[25:18]
Sean Kent
Thank you for having me. I appreciate you guys.
[25:21]
Anushka Mutandadawati
That was our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent, joining us once again from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode. Episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds. With me, Anoushka Mutandadouati. Now, in a couple of weeks, we're headed to Las Vegas to cover the Tupac murder trial. Yep, 30 years later, who killed Tupac? So we'll be dropping an all you need to know episode. So make sure you are subscribed and ready to listen to that. And as always, if you've got any questions, send them to me. On social media, it's Anoushkamd On Instagram and TikTok.
[25:50]
Miles Bonner
Christmas 1988, a plane takes off from Heathrow Airport. 38 minutes later, everyone on board is dead. A Libyan man, Abdul Basa Al Megrahi, is convicted of murdering 270 people. But that's not the end of the story. Almost four decades on fresh evidence and a new trial. I'm Miles Bonner. In this podcast, I'm delving into a world of extremist groups, mysterious intelligence agents and global Politics. From Radio 4, this is Intrigue Lockerbay. Listen first on BBC Sounds.

Summary6 min read

Fame Under Fire – “D4vd Preliminary Hearing: Wrap-Up”
BBC Sounds, July 30, 2026
Host: Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty
Guest: Sean Kent (trial attorney, legal analyst)

Episode Overview

This episode of Fame Under Fire wraps up the preliminary hearing in the D4vd (David Burke) murder case, focusing on what unfolded in court, the legal implications, and the routes both prosecution and defense may take as the high-profile trial moves forward. Host Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty and legal expert Sean Kent break down key themes, answer listener questions, and dig into the legal complexities — all with the podcast’s trademark sharpness and sensitivity to the disturbing details of the case.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Case Summary and Legal Context

David Burke (“D4vd”) status: Entered a not guilty plea to charges of murder, unlawful dismemberment, and continuous sexual abuse of a minor under 14 (Celeste Rivas Hernandez). [01:05]
Details: Celeste’s decomposed body was found in a Tesla linked to David. [01:05]
Next steps: Arraignment scheduled for August 31, with a speedy trial right (must begin within 90 days if invoked). [01:05]

2. Welfare Checks & Law Enforcement Response

Sean Kent: Criticizes the handling of an earlier welfare check, highlighting systemic responsibility:

"We count on law enforcement...when you literally have a welfare check going to somebody's house...and it doesn't go further, that's a problem." [02:39]
Potential for civil lawsuit: If convicted, family members of the victim could sue the state for a failed welfare check, though damages are typically limited. [03:45]
Parental responsibilities: Parents are not mandatory reporters but have a duty not to harm their child. Schools or clinics (mandatory reporters) are obligated to report suspicions of abuse. [04:14]

3. Medical Privacy, Mandatory Reporting & Alleged Abortion

Prosecution alleges Celeste was pregnant and had an abortion, possibly without parental consent.
Abortion clinics as mandatory reporters: Legally obliged to report statutory rape if a young teen seeks abortion, despite HIPAA privacy laws.

“By definition that's statutory rape. That is a crime. We are reporting a crime that has happened. We cannot avoid it.” — Sean Kent [05:37]
Fake ID issue: Unclear what documentation was presented at the clinic—possible further evidence for trial. [06:51]

4. Listener Q&A: Evidence & Admissibility

Discovery Rules & “Surprise” Evidence

Listener Gloria asks: What happens if prosecution finds new evidence (like a murder weapon) mid-trial? [07:27]
Sean Kent:

“Stop watching movies...It does not happen that way. And it would be inadmissible.” [07:54]
- Discovery requires pre-trial disclosure; both sides can request continuances for new evidence. [07:59-09:24]

Language Around Evidence & Ownership

Listener Anthea asks: Why is the Tesla “linked to” David, not “owned by”? [09:28]
Anoushka:

“We just do not know what the defense are going to come out and say...So for us to say it was absolutely 100% David's car is us making a determination...” [09:50]
Sean Kent:

“The law does not allow us to guess...If you catch yourself using phrases such as he must have, we believe, I think—that's not evidence.” [10:24]
- Applauds BBC’s careful language, calling it a “gold star” moment. [12:20]

Mistake of Age as a Defense

Listener question: Can David use “she misrepresented her age” as a defense? [13:08]
Sean Kent:

“Generally, mistake of age is not a defense...But nine times out of 10, they say, yeah, none of this matters if the person's under 14.” [13:15]
- Statutes get stricter with age thresholds; under 14 is essentially strict liability. [15:48]

Continuous Sexual Abuse & Statutory Structure

Why is “under 14” a legal threshold? [16:21]
Sean Kent:

“Those are the ones we protect...they have not developed their frontal cortex to make decisions as we would assume normal adult.” [16:21]
- Legal structure is based on developmental psychology, with harsher penalties for crimes against younger children.
Definition of continuous sexual abuse: Only need to prove abuse occurred at least three times over three months; does not require specific dates. [18:15–18:30]

5. Defense Strategies Previewed

Defense seems poised to:
- Challenge “special circumstances” elevating the charge to capital murder (e.g., “lying in wait,” financial motives). [18:48]
- Suggest Celeste was the aggressor in visiting against David’s wishes; possibly raise self-defense (requires David to testify directly). [18:48–22:51]
- Introduce evidence implying Celeste had behavioral/mental health issues or may have been violent—controversial “dirtying up the witness” tactic. [22:51–23:10]
Sean Kent:

“David is on trial for his life. Whether you like it or not, David's on trial for his life.” [23:10]

6. Plea Possibility & Speedy Trial

Arraignment on August 31; plea still possible but unlikely without a deal. [23:18]
Death penalty still technically on the table; no firm commitment by the prosecution. [23:49]
Speedy trial: Legally possible within 90 days but highly unlikely due to volume of digital evidence (terabytes) and complexity. [24:04–24:46]

7. Tone & Ethical Considerations

Acknowledgment of the gravity and tragedy of the case:

“This is an awful case and I don't want anyone to think I'm making light of it...a child lost their life. And it's so disturbing...” — Sean Kent [24:46]
Reminder of presumption of innocence:

“David has entered a not guilty plea on all charges, and his attorneys have previously said that the actual evidence will prove that he did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez, nor was he the cause of her death.” [25:05]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On law enforcement’s duty:

“Had you done your job, we wouldn't be in this situation.” — Sean Kent [02:39]
On legal language and evidence:

“If you catch yourself using phrases such as he must have, we believe, I think—that's not evidence.” — Sean Kent [10:24]
On discovery rules:

“Stop watching movies...It does not happen that way. And it would be inadmissible.” — Sean Kent [07:54]
On mistake of age as a defense:

“Generally, mistake of age is not a defense...but nine times out of 10, they say, yeah, none of this matters if the person's under 14.” — Sean Kent [13:15]
On defense preview:

“It appears as though the first thing that the defense appears to be doing is getting rid of those special circumstances.” — Sean Kent [18:48] “He would have to testify, not his lawyers. He would have to get on the stand.” — Sean Kent [21:47]

Timestamps for Key Segments

01:05 – Core charge summary and arraignment date
02:39 – Welfare check and law enforcement accountability
03:45 – Civil liability for failed welfare checks; parent responsibilities
05:13 – Abortion, mandatory reporters, and medical privacy
07:27 – Discovery rules and “surprise evidence” in court
09:28 – Language around the Tesla and evidence ownership
13:08 – Mistake of age as a legal defense
16:21 – Why “under 14” is a key legal threshold
18:48 – Preview of defense strategies
21:47 – Why defense theories would require David’s testimony
23:18 – Possibility of a plea; death penalty status
24:46 – Trial timeline and ethical considerations

Conclusion & Next Steps

David’s next court appearance: Arraignment on August 31, 2026 (trial could occur within 90 days, but likely delayed).
Hosts reaffirm commitment to fact-led, careful coverage and presumption of innocence.
Preview: Next episode to cover the Tupac Shakur murder trial in Las Vegas.

For more, follow Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty on Instagram and TikTok (@anoushkamd) and submit questions for future episodes.

Loading summary

Transcript61 lines

[00:00]
Sean Kent
This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.
[00:06]
Advertisement Voice
Pop quiz. What's in your kid's lunchbox? At Whole Foods Market, they've already done the studying. Over 300 food ingredients are banned from their shelves. No hydrogenated fats in the peanut butter and no high fructose corn syrup in the cookies. And for sandwiches, there are no synthetic nitrates or nitrites in any of their deli meat. So. So you can pack lunch boxes with peace of mind. Get back to school. Ready at Whole Foods Market. Grainger knows when you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners. Lights about to fail, filters ready to clog. H Vac on its last leg. If you wait until something breaks, you're already behind. Count on Granger for quality products, easy reordering and 24. 7 support. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
[01:06]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Mutandadawati. The preliminary hearing of singer David has finished and we now know his arraignment is on the 31st of August and he has the right to a speedy trial. So within 90 days of that. Now, a reminder to David is accused of the murder, unlawful dismemberment and continuous sexual abuse of 14 year old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, whose body was found decomposing in the front trunk of a Tesla linked to him. Warning. The details of this case are graphic and some listeners may find them upsetting. Now, David has entered a not guilty plea on all charges and his attorneys have previously told us that, quote, the actual evidence in this case will show that David Burke, that's his real name, did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez and he was not the cause of her death. We will vigorously defend David's innocence.
[01:50]
Sean Kent
Now.
[01:50]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Joining me today is not our wonderful Los Angeles court reporter Sam Mulek, but somebody called Sean Kent.
[01:59]
Sean Kent
Hi, Sean. Welcome to the program. Yeah, I just feel replaced. I'm hurt. I'm going through withdrawal. And I'm just happy that I was able to get back on the team.
[02:07]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Sean broke up with us. He said he never wanted to see us again. And then he disappeared and we couldn't
[02:11]
Sean Kent
get hold of him.
[02:13]
Anushka Mutandadawati
It's good to be back. Yeah. If everyone's sending messages going, where's Sean? Here he is. He's been doing, I'm here in a Very big court case in South Carolina. But we knew we had to get you on to go through this. Sean, we've been doing this pretty much since it was released that David was a, quote, target of the grand jury. Now we know this is officially going to make its way to trial. There are a few things that we want to go over. That welfare check that's coming up over and over again, that bothers me the
[02:40]
Sean Kent
most because these are vulnerable adults. We count on law enforcement, we count on officers, we count on the system protecting children, adults and animals. And so when you literally have a welfare check going to somebody's house and saying, we have information that you might have been engaged in a relationship with somebody who's under a specific age and it doesn't go further, that's a problem. And that's something that could lead to a potential civil lawsuit down the road. I know that doesn't seem important now, and it probably doesn't seem important to the family now, but. But there will be, down the road, somebody who makes a comment, had you done your job, we wouldn't be in this situation. Had you stopped. This presupposes David's guilt. And I'm not saying that right now because he's still innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying if down the road, if, if, if, if, if down the road there is a conviction and David is convicted and more information comes out, I can see a situation where someone says, had law enforcement done their job, had the welfare check work, had he been stopped at this point in time, we wouldn't have gone here. And so you could see a lawsuit coming.
[03:42]
Anushka Mutandadawati
And that could be against what? The family? Against the state.
[03:45]
Sean Kent
That could be against the state. Exactly. The state who did the welfare check saying they didn't do their job, they have checks and balances they're supposed to do. They didn't do their job properly, they can bring a lawsuit. Now, is it going to be multimillion dollars? Probably not, because those lawsuits are limited in the amount of money you can sue a state.
[03:59]
Anushka Mutandadawati
But it's something that's interesting. If, say, if you were a parent, either David's parents or Celeste's parents, and you had an inkling that something was going on, that something untoward was happening, do you have, like, a leg duty to investigate that?
[04:14]
Sean Kent
Investigate is a strong word because, believe it or not, parents are not what are called mandatory reporters, but a parent, you have a duty to your child, and that's what I talked about. You have an unlawful conduct towards your child standard. And what happens in this, in the law is if law enforcement comes in and says you are putting your child in a dangerous situation and that's what we have, those welfare checks. That's the exact point of it. So if somebody reports, let's say for argument's sake, the following happens. A child goes to school, they have marks on their body, they look very thin, they are dirty, they are not eating. Well, the school is a mandatory reporter. The school has a duty to contact welfare dss, whoever's agency is in that state and say there's something wrong with this child. The agency has a duty. Then go to the parent and check. And when they check the parent, if they've done something wrong, then they can bring a lawsuit. And they don't necessarily say you have a duty to tell us you're doing something wrong. You have a duty not to hurt your dang child.
[05:13]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Okay, well, let's keep talking about mandatory reporters because what came out during those text messages was the allegation that Celeste was pregnant and had an abortion and that she perhaps felt forced to do so. That's the allegation from the prosecution. And a big question there is how on earth does a 14 year old, 13, 14 year old have an abortion without parental consent? Is it incumbent upon the abortion clinic to then mandatory report to the police? What are the rules in California?
[05:38]
Sean Kent
The rules are going to be the same almost everywhere. First you have to start with the assumption that there are HIPAA privacy laws that we've talked about. HIPAA laws protect the fact that these clinics at these places cannot just go and give your information. If you're 18, 19, 20, they cannot give adult information. And this goes with any medical provider. The difference is when we're dealing with children, when you're dealing with someone under a specific age, if the clinic, if the association knows there's something happening with, they have a duty the same way that I talked about with the school. They are a mandatory reporter under statute that they must go to their agencies, DSS law enforcement, and say, look, there is a 13 year old child in here having an abortion. By definition that's statutory rape. That is a crime. We are reporting a crime that has happened. We cannot avoid it. We're going to do it. I don't know. Again, I don't know the facts of this scenario. I do not know what happened. I don't know if she had parental consent. I don't know if she went in there with a fake id. I do not know. I'm just telling you generically. It is very Strange to assume that a 13 year old can go into a clinic without giving proper ID in the clinic, not trigger. And have to report them to somebody. That's why.
[06:52]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Right. So it comes down into what documentation she might have shown when she was in there. We did have mentions of fake IDs throughout the preliminary hearing, although the defense did jump in and say that that evidence hadn't been actually entered in yet. So I'm sure we'll hear more about that as we move towards trial. I've got a really good question here from Gloria. She says, I've been wondering what happens in a trial. Let's say the prosecution discover new information the day before they go into court. But said information was not mentioned during the preliminary hearing. Assuming this new info is not known to the defense because of such short notice, is it still admissible to court? And she's put in brackets. I was thinking of a miraculous discovery of a murder weapon mid trial.
[07:27]
Sean Kent
I'm going to say it. Don't you give me a hard time.
[07:30]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Should we do it together?
[07:33]
Sean Kent
That is a great question. That is a great question for so many reasons. Everyone out there in Cartoon Land, ignore all the stuff you see on TV that at the last moment they say, we found it, you, Honor. We found the murder weapon. 30 seconds before the witness gets off the stand. Stop. Let me say it louder.
[07:54]
Miles Bonner
Stop.
[07:55]
Sean Kent
It doesn't happen that way. And it would be inadmissible.
[07:58]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Okay.
[07:59]
Sean Kent
There are rules, and they're called discovery. Discovery requires the state to turn over all of the evidence in their possession within a specific period of time before the trial occurs. Why? Because this is not Perry Mason. This is not movies. We do not want surprises. And the court doesn't want surprises. They don't want them either way. The State is not required to tell the world all of their evidence. So even though we are watching it, they don't have to put it all out there. Now, they are required to give all of that to the defense attorneys. And the defense attorneys are not required to tell everybody everything. My gut reaction is you did not see the entire trial. You did not see the entire caviclade Anushka of evidence. You did not see all of it at once. What you did is you saw enough that they thought was necessary. One, to get past probable cause. And I think they could have done that in 37 minutes. But two, enough to influence a jury is what I think they were really trying to do to show we have a strong case. But yes, if the murder weapon showed up during trial, the defense would Ask for a continuance, they would get it. The prosecution would ask for a continuance, they would get it. Because there's so much testing, so much other stuff that has to go on. If they even have a hint of where the murder weapon is, I promise you, the defense knows, the prosecution knows. But no. Stop watching movies. No, no, no, no, no. It does not happen. But I do love that question.
[09:25]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Got another great question here from Anthea on Instagram.
[09:28]
Sean Kent
Hi, Anthea.
[09:30]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Why do we keep saying the Tesla is linked to David rather than saying it belonged to him or he owned it? So we've been really careful with the language that we use around this story with the Tesla being linked rather than, this was absolutely David's car. Because we don't know what the defense are going to say. And if they're going to introduce the idea that, yeah, it was in his name, but 55 people drove it. Yeah, it was. It was an artist car.
[09:50]
Sean Kent
Yeah.
[09:50]
Anushka Mutandadawati
It was also driven by his security guard, etc. So we are waiting to see what they're going to say about that. We can say that the car was registered to him and also that the prosecution claimed that they have seen CCTV footage that prove he was the last person to drive it. Remember, they said that he drove it to Ross's, that he drove it to Santa Barbara, and they have all of this on camera. But the use of the word linked is because we just do not know what the defense are going to come out and say. And so for us to say it was absolutely 100% David's car is us making a determination on, on the evidence, on the facts of who had access to that vehicle. Sean, do you want to add anything to that?
[10:24]
Sean Kent
There are defense lawyers everywhere in America just clapping on that because that is the perfect way to say it. Linked to. And the court of public opinion has 100% convicted. David. Let's be honest. We've looked at social media, we've seen what it is. And the court of public defendant has said he killed her. Maybe he did. Okay, I'm not saying he did. I'm not saying he didn't. But you cannot make that gigantic jump in the court of law with all of the breadcrumbs of evidence, because one of the major things is we do not know. Whether you say it or not, you do not know at this point in time, from what we've all watched, how she died. I know. And don't come at me and say, well, the medical examiner, when I say how she died, who put the Final wound inside of her. What happened inside of that residence, Is the defense going to be self defense? And so when we use phrases like link, the law does not allow us to guess. The law does not allow us to assume. And so what happens a lot that we watch in social media is people put the breadcrumbs together and they say, it was her, his car. He put her in the trunk. He must have put her in the trunk because he was the only one. If you catch yourself using phrases such as he must have, we believe, I think that's not evidence. A lot of times I must get in trial. What I do to officers when I get them on the stand and I think they're doing what people do is I'll say the following, officer, without using phrases such as it must have, we believe, I assume, what evidence do you have that blank did this? And they just pause and they're like, well. And that's the question you need to watch as a listener. If you're saying it must have, I believe we assume, then you don't have evidence. The evidence is we have a witness who saw this. The DNA says this. The video camera saws this. So I love the fact that the BBC is using the phrase link to gold star from Marcus.
[12:21]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Gold star from Marcus. I wonder if anyone gets these references.
[12:25]
Sean Kent
No.
[12:25]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Do you not think?
[12:26]
Sean Kent
No.
[12:27]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Okay. You need to get into the Eddie Murphy filmography and catch up. So for anyone who was with us through Diddy, everybody was quite surprised that he was not convicted on all three charges, that he was only convicted of transportation for prostitution because the court of public opinion had decided that he was. Well, they'd kind of decided that he was the devil and a witch and also a necrophiliac and all manner of other things. But another question that I've been thinking, thinking about a lot, and I've seen it come up online, is the fact that the defense have started to put forward the idea that Celeste misrepresented her age, that she said she was 16 and sometimes 18 to David. And then we have this crime of the continuous sexual abuse of a minor under 14 years old. Allegation from the prosecution.
[13:08]
Advertisement Voice
If.
[13:08]
Anushka Mutandadawati
If there's a world in which they were engaged in a sexual relationship but David believes she was of age, does that mean he can still get convicted of that?
[13:15]
Sean Kent
So it's something that people don't really understand. And it's interesting generally. I'm going to talk very generally. In the United States of America, mistake of age is not a defense. And the reason that it is Is you do not want to have an individual coming in there and saying the sentence that we all hear. I thought she was blank years old. I believed she was blank years old. Now there's the case. It's called People vs Hernandez. And it says every now and then you can use mistake of age as a defense, but what it is, is it takes what's called a reasonable person standard. A reasonable person in that shoes, in that position, Would they actually believe that the person was under a specific age? And then it talks about some of the stuff in this situation. Did they give a fake id? Would a reasonable person believe it? Did they give text message saying they are a specific age? Sound familiar? Did they tell this person, do they hold themselves out to be of a specific age? There's an exception in People vs. Hernandez. They say all of this, but nine times out of 10, they say, yeah, none of this matters if the person's under 14. You know what I'm saying? So they say they do all this reasonable standard, but there's at some point in time, they do employ a common sense test. They're like, the person is 14, okay? The person is 13. That I think is going to be a challenge. Would a reasonable person believe that Celeste was under or over a specific age? And let's not put on our. We hear the age and we're making an assumption. We have to do a critical look at the evidence from David's standpoint as a reasonable person. Would there be anything in David's standpoint that would trigger that she was under the age of first 18, then 16, and then 14? And I know you said, why would you take those age classifications? Because that's what the court is going to do. Would a reasonable person in this position believe she was over 18? Most people would say no. But what if she said she was? And then you ask questions such like this, well, didn't you go to her school to pick her up? Wouldn't a reasonable person know not to go to her school? The text messages. You have to go through all of that standard and try to figure out. But generally, mistake of age is not a defense. A client cannot come in and say, I thought she was this age. Courts most likely will say no. And in South Carolina, we can't even utilize that unless you have very, very, very, very specific reasons to believe. Why, like, you met her in an adult chat room that says you must be over the age of 18 to get in. That's something where an adult only would think those situations.
[15:48]
Anushka Mutandadawati
And of course, the prosecution alleged that they. They met on Discord when she was 11. They also alleged that he paid her classmates to give her a phone after her phone was confiscated by her parents. So there are lots of different avenues that they could take to try and show that he was aware of her age. And I should keep reiterating, we're in the world of what possibilities here and theories that we have about what the defense and what the prosecution might say at trial, but we just don't know. Can we just go over why there is that sort of line in the sand there for the age of 14 years old? Why. Why is that specified in law?
[16:22]
Sean Kent
And I want to give you the. The background and the real reason. I mean, and they're both about the same, the background. Of course, when you talk about children in general, the rules are not complicated. They have not developed abilities, they have not developed their frontal cortex to make decisions as we would assume normal adult. We talk about the rules of 7 that people develop in ages of 7. Somebody from 0 to 7 develops in a very specific way. 7 to 14 develops in a very specific way. 14 to 21 develops in a very specific way. And a lot of our rules are based on those developmental patterns. And Anushka, a lot of times the criminal penalties are higher, depending on what range you fall into. And so that's a lot of times when people say, well, why is the criminal penalty between somebody zero to seven higher than between seven to 14? Well, one, yes. Ew. It sounds nasty. But more importantly, what it is is that developmental age that they're more susceptible at certain ages. And so we're in that 7 to 14 age range that we're saying that Celeste is in. The courts have universally said at this age they are more susceptible, they're easily influenced, and they are not allowed to make their decisions. And you also have to be careful. Once you get to that 13 to 14, you're able to leave easier, able to go by yourself easier. That's usually the age range where parents trust you to be able to go do things. Those are the age range where people are starting to get their cell phones. And so that 7 to 14 range, it's easier. I'm going to say this, and I am not accusing David, and I'm not talking specifically about Celeste, but at that 7 to 14, that's when our pedophiles have an easier access to get to those individuals. So those are the ones we protect when we get a little older. That's where the penalties are a little bit different, and that's where the Courts are just like, all right, would a reasonable person believe this 15, 16 year old is 18, 19, 20? And that's where those laws change a little bit.
[18:16]
Anushka Mutandadawati
But it's not just that she is under the age of 14. Also the nature of the allegation being continuous because they don't have to prove specific sexual acts tied to specific dates. They just need to prove that sexual conduct occurred at least three times over three months. Is that correct?
[18:30]
Sean Kent
Three times over a three month period of time?
[18:32]
Advertisement Voice
Yeah.
[18:32]
Anushka Mutandadawati
We don't know a lot, but we have started to see a little bit some of the legal routes that the defense might be taking in their closing arguments. Not so much through their cross examination, because they didn't do that much, but in the closing arguments, we started to see perhaps what they could argue at trial. Can you just walk us through that, Sean?
[18:48]
Sean Kent
I think we saw a very strong glimpse at what the defense is. And what they're going to do, it appears, is to be not necessarily going on the offensive, but to be attacking little elements of what the prosecution is trying to do. They have charged David first. Let's start with murder. Murder In California carries 25 years. Now if it's done with a weapon or something of this nature, it increases by one year. I think it turns into 26 years. And more importantly, if they have special circumstances, that's when he starts looking at a life sentence. And so it appears as though the first thing that the defense appears to be doing is getting rid of those special circumstances. One of the first special circumstances when you talk to murder, murder is the intentional killing of another being with malice aforethought. The biggest issue with that is premeditation. In California, they're saying that one of their circumstances of aggravation is he laid in wait. Basically, he trapped her, tricked her, was waiting behind a bush for her to come in because this was a plan to kill her. You could see from the defense's questions and from the text messages that they brought in that they are making the suggestion that David was not planning for her to come over. He did not want her to come over. He told her many times not to come over, and she was pushing this. So one of their things is going to be, how in the world could I be laying in wait when she was the one, she was the aggressor of coming over to our residence? I'm not saying that's strong or not strong, but you can see that that's a part of the defense to one of the situations is this was done for financial Gain that he was doing this to make sure that he didn't lose his career, that he was worried that she was going to come out and tell the world about him. When they went through the text messages, there's two things that are strong about this. One, she never threatened to out him to the law. I think one of the text messages said, I'm going to tell my daddy lies about you. So one of the things would be he would not be worried about her destroying his career. Number two would be the fact that he would not be worried. This is a possible defense strategy about the world finding out. Because as far as he's concerned, the world already knew about the relationship. And then the last you can see a defense that they're trying to say one or two things. Did she stab herself? I think that's unrealistic. But they offered text messages potentially of this child's violence, possibly being bipolar, threatening David's life in the past, wanting to come to the residence, being very angry that he might have been in a relationship with somebody else, there might have been a series of disagreements or fight before them in the past. He could get on the stand and say, she came over, she got very angry, she was very jealous. She came at me, a fight incurred. I didn't want to kill her. This is what ended up happening. Yes, I ordered chainsaws and all of this other stuff, but it wasn't offered before she was dead. I ordered this stuff afterwards and I panicked because I knew it was going to end my career and I did a bunch of stupid stuff. So he could admit to a lot of it and say that this would happen because there's only two people inside of the house. But that means he would have to testify.
[21:44]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Oh, he would have to testify to do that. They couldn't present that theory without him
[21:47]
Sean Kent
because to prove self defense, every state's a little bit different. But I will tell you, if he's going to offer, offer that theory, he 1000% would have to testify. Because in self defense, one of the crucial elements is a reasonable person, meaning you, David, was in reasonable fear of your life and you reacted the way you had to. So he would have to explain to a jury why this small child, I think at autopsy was 78 pounds. Give her best case scenario 90 pounds. But David is also a small person. But why were you so fearful of her you felt it was necessary to kill? You must testify to get the fear element in or a judge will not give you that charge. So you were in a place that you had a Lawful right to be. You did nothing to bring on the difficulty is the second thing. And you were in reasonable fear of your life when you did this situation. And so those are things. He would have to testify, not as lawyers. He would have to get on stand. And two, we always find that when you're making these type of strong allegations, the client is the one who has a look directly in the jury and say, I did it, but this is why.
[22:52]
Anushka Mutandadawati
And then, of course, the text messages that they bring in on the final day that she was already angry about his relationship with another person called Asia. Yep, I see where you're going with that. There was commentary within the courtroom that they were dirtying up the witness, and that was something that they shouldn't be doing. It was kind of immoral. But I think you're going to tell me as a criminal defense. Yeah, here we go.
[23:10]
Sean Kent
I hate when people say that. I hate that. They're like, oh, they're dirtying up the witness. David is on trial for his life. Whether you like it or not, David's on trial for his life.
[23:19]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Well, we know we have that arraignment on the 31st of August. Could he still. Could he decide to plea there? Yes, but he won't be given a plea deal.
[23:28]
Sean Kent
He will not. Like, here's the thing. You can never stop anybody from saying, I want to plea straight up. I don't want a recommendation. I want to plead guilty. I want to be done with this. Absolutely you can. So, yes, a plea is still in the realm of possibility. Do I believe it's going to happen? No, not because David would not be looking for a deal, but I do not believe the state would offer.
[23:50]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Yeah, I mean, considering there's still sort of. The question of the death penalty is yet to be answered. Nathan Hockman didn't press us saying we haven't decided yet. Still on the table, what do you think? A trial within 90 days of August 31, a speedy trial.
[24:04]
Sean Kent
Would I be shocked?
[24:05]
Miles Bonner
Yes.
[24:06]
Sean Kent
Could it happen? Because here's the thing. From the state's position, I mean, that is a quick trial. It really is. 90 days is quick from arraignment. But from the state's position, you know what they're thinking. You just saw our case. We're ready to go. We could go tomorrow. The defense will be the ones who are saying, judge, we need more time. This prelim took a long time. We have experts we need to consult. We need to go through the evidence. I think they will ask for at least one containment.
[24:28]
Anushka Mutandadawati
Well, given the fact that during the preliminary hearing, the defense were photographing bits of evidence they said they didn't have access to, maybe that's an indication that this is going to take a lot longer. Yeah, and terabytes. And terabytes of information, which was more than we had for the Diddy trial. Yeah, I think that's a fair prediction to make.
[24:46]
Sean Kent
I mean, this is an awful case and I don't want anyone to think I'm making light of it. It is beyond sad. I don't know what David did, what he didn't do, but a child lost their life. And it's so disturbing. And so I don't want anyone to think we're making light of what has happened because it is, it is a, it is a sad case, but we still have to look at it in a practical legal aspect on what's going on.
[25:06]
Anushka Mutandadawati
And just a reminder, David has entered a not guilty plea on all charges, and his attorneys have previously said that the actual evidence will prove that he did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez, nor was he the cause of her death. Sean, thank you so much for joining us.
[25:18]
Sean Kent
Thank you for having me. I appreciate you guys.
[25:21]
Anushka Mutandadawati
That was our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent, joining us once again from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode. Episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds. With me, Anoushka Mutandadouati. Now, in a couple of weeks, we're headed to Las Vegas to cover the Tupac murder trial. Yep, 30 years later, who killed Tupac? So we'll be dropping an all you need to know episode. So make sure you are subscribed and ready to listen to that. And as always, if you've got any questions, send them to me. On social media, it's Anoushkamd On Instagram and TikTok.
[25:50]
Miles Bonner
Christmas 1988, a plane takes off from Heathrow Airport. 38 minutes later, everyone on board is dead. A Libyan man, Abdul Basa Al Megrahi, is convicted of murdering 270 people. But that's not the end of the story. Almost four decades on fresh evidence and a new trial. I'm Miles Bonner. In this podcast, I'm delving into a world of extremist groups, mysterious intelligence agents and global Politics. From Radio 4, this is Intrigue Lockerbay. Listen first on BBC Sounds.