D4vd attorneys argue his defense now: fight fades

The defense team for D4vd is shaping its case around two core claims: their client did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez and he was not the cause of her death. Those assertions sit at the center of pretrial maneuvering at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, where delays and evidence disputes now dominate the calendar.

Defense team lineup

Blair Berk of Berk Brettler LLP leads the representation, joined by Marilyn Bednarski and Regina Peter. Berk’s track record with high-profile clients gives the defense immediate visibility, yet the current matter centers on DNA reports, device records, and autopsy findings rather than past cases.

The attorneys filed a not-guilty plea on April 20, 2026, and have used subsequent hearings to request additional time for review. They cite the volume of digital material and forensic samples turned over by prosecutors as justification for pushing the preliminary hearing to July 21.

Public statements from the team stress that evidence will show Burke neither caused the death nor participated in concealment. Those remarks have been issued jointly, avoiding any solo commentary that could invite scrutiny before discovery concludes.

Core innocence argument

Defense filings repeat that Burke “did not murder” Hernandez and “was not the cause of her death.” The language addresses both direct causation and any allegation of joint participation in disposal of remains.

Attorneys have asked the court to limit pretrial publicity, arguing that repeated references to CSAM allegations and career-protection motive risk prejudicing potential jurors. Sealed motions on this point remain under review.

They have not presented an affirmative theory of the case in open court. Instead, the record shows repeated requests for raw data so experts can test prosecution conclusions on timing and identity of remains.

Evidence review timeline

The defense received terabytes of phone extraction data and vehicle telemetry logs in late May. Parsing that material requires forensic specialists who must also examine DNA mixtures recovered from the Tesla’s trunk and interior panels.

Prosecutors maintain the material was disclosed on schedule. The defense counters that indexing and chain-of-custody documents arrived piecemeal, creating practical delays rather than strategic ones.

Judge rulings on these disputes will determine whether the July 21 date holds or slips again. Observers note that further continuances could push any trial setting into 2027.

DNA and device disputes

Defense experts seek raw electropherograms to re-run mixture interpretation on several samples. They argue that current reports rely on probabilistic genotyping software whose error rates remain subject to challenge under California evidence rules.

Prosecutors have opposed additional testing on grounds that defense access already exceeds discovery obligations. The court has scheduled a June status conference to address the scope of re-testing.

Device metadata showing location history and deleted files also figure in upcoming motions. The defense wants full extraction reports rather than law-enforcement summaries before any hearing on admissibility.

Motive allegations addressed

Prosecutors allege Burke sought to shield a rising music career from exposure of an alleged relationship. Defense papers treat this narrative as unsupported speculation rather than evidence of intent.

Attorneys note that career trajectory alone does not establish a plan to commit homicide. They have asked the court to exclude character evidence that does not tie directly to the charged acts.

No defense witness list has surfaced yet. Any counter-narrative about the victim’s final movements or third-party involvement would likely surface only after the preliminary hearing filters admissible proof.

Pretrial publicity concerns

Berk’s team filed a motion to seal certain prosecution memos that reference social-media posts and press coverage. They contend the volume of commentary risks tainting the Los Angeles jury pool before voir dire begins.

The motion cites comparable high-profile matters in which early release of inflammatory material prompted venue changes. Prosecutors responded that public interest does not equate to incurable prejudice.

The court has not ruled on the sealing request. Observers expect a narrow order that balances transparency with the need for an impartial panel.

Attorney statements in context

Joint releases from Berk, Bednarski, and Peter emphasize that the evidence will exonerate Burke. The phrasing avoids any detailed rebuttal of specific exhibits, preserving flexibility for later filings.

Media availability has been limited to written statements. This approach reduces the chance of off-the-cuff remarks that could be introduced against the defense at trial.

Inside the courthouse, the attorneys have focused on scheduling and discovery logistics rather than substantive argument. That restraint aligns with standard practice when preliminary hearings remain months away.

Next procedural steps

The July 21 preliminary hearing will test whether prosecutors can establish probable cause on murder, sexual abuse, and mutilation counts. Defense cross-examination of forensic witnesses could preview trial themes.

If the case advances, attorneys plan motions to suppress device data and to limit graphic autopsy photographs shown to jurors. Both sides anticipate lengthy briefing on these issues.

Any negotiated resolution appears distant. The defense posture remains centered on contesting causation and identity rather than exploring lesser pleas at this stage.

Case trajectory ahead

The defense strategy centers on exhaustive evidence review and procedural safeguards before any trial date is set. How the court resolves pending discovery and publicity disputes will shape the timeline and tone of proceedings that follow.