D4vd’s legal defense: What his attorneys are arguing

The case against singer D4vd has drawn national attention since the body of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez was found in a Tesla registered to him last September. His attorneys have maintained from the start that their client did not kill her. They are now using court filings and public statements to shape what the defense will actually argue when the matter moves forward.

Defense team identity

Blair Berk, Marilyn Bednarski, and Regina Peter form the core group representing David Anthony Burke. Berk’s prior clients have included high-profile figures facing serious charges, so the choice signals the level of preparation the defense intends to bring. The three lawyers released a joint statement early in the process declaring that the evidence will show Burke did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez and was not the cause of her death.

The attorneys have also stressed that no grand jury has returned an indictment and that their client remains detained only under suspicion. That distinction matters for procedural reasons and for the narrative they want to establish. By framing the case as still open on basic charging questions, the team keeps pressure on prosecutors to produce more than initial police reports.

Securing repeated continuances has been another early move. The preliminary hearing has already been pushed several times, most recently to July 21, 2026. Each delay buys time to review discovery, especially DNA and forensic materials the defense says it has not yet received in full.

Core denial on cause of death

The attorneys have made clear they are not contesting the relationship between Burke and the victim or the fact that her body was found in the vehicle. Their line of argument focuses narrowly on who caused the death and when. They have signaled they may challenge the medical examiner’s findings or introduce evidence that another person was responsible.

Public statements from the team emphasize the absence of proof that Burke killed Celeste Rivas Hernandez. That position leaves room for an alternative-suspect theory without requiring the defense to name anyone yet. Such an approach is common in cases where forensic links remain under review and timelines are still being contested.

The defense has also accused prosecutors of slow-walking discovery, particularly DNA results. By highlighting those delays in court, the attorneys shift some attention onto the state’s preparation while they continue their own evidence review.

Relationship and location facts

Defense filings and statements treat the existence of the relationship and the car’s location as established background rather than disputed points. This choice narrows the coming fight to causation and identity of the killer. It also avoids wasting resources on facts prosecutors can easily prove with records and witness accounts.

By conceding those elements early, the team preserves credibility on the issues that actually determine guilt or innocence. The strategy is consistent with how experienced defense lawyers handle cases where some physical facts are difficult to contest but the link to their client remains circumstantial.

That framing also affects media coverage. Outlets repeating the defense’s own words about the relationship and the Tesla keep those facts from becoming contested terrain, which keeps the focus on what the attorneys say the evidence will ultimately show.

Tool purchase allegations

Court documents reference alleged purchases of chainsaws, a shovel, and a body bag under a false name. The defense has not yet addressed those claims in detail in public statements. Their current posture suggests they will challenge the chain of custody, the identification of the buyer, or the relevance of the items to the actual cause of death.

Attorneys in similar cases often wait for full forensic reports before responding to tool-related evidence. Until those reports are complete, the defense can argue that any connection remains speculative. That approach keeps options open for both exclusion motions and cross-examination at trial.

The team’s early focus on discovery delays serves the same purpose. More time to examine how the items were traced and whether any DNA or fingerprints actually tie Burke to them strengthens the chance of limiting their impact in front of a jury.

Discovery disputes

The defense has repeatedly told the court that prosecutors have not turned over complete DNA and forensic materials. Those complaints have accompanied each request for additional time. Judges in Los Angeles have granted the continuances, which shows the court is treating the requests as reasonable rather than dilatory.

Discovery fights are common in high-stakes murder cases, but they also create leverage. Every week the defense can point to missing evidence, the harder it becomes for prosecutors to claim the case is ready for a preliminary hearing. That dynamic can influence plea discussions even before charges are fully tested in court.

The attorneys have used these disputes to reinforce their public message that the evidence against Burke is still incomplete. That narrative matters for both the courtroom and the court of public opinion while the case remains in its early procedural stages.

Media and public posture

The joint statement from Berk, Bednarski, and Peter was released to major outlets and framed the defense position in clear terms. By going on record early, the team limited the ability of prosecutors to shape the first impression of the case. The statement also set expectations for what the defense will and will not contest.

Subsequent court appearances have kept the same tone. The lawyers have avoided dramatic claims while steadily noting the lack of an indictment and the gaps in discovery. That restraint matches the profile of attorneys who expect to litigate the case for months or years rather than weeks.

Social media discussion has tracked the defense statements closely. Fans and observers repeat the attorneys’ language about alternative causes and missing evidence, which keeps those points in circulation even when new prosecution filings appear.

Timeline and hearing delays

The case has already seen multiple status conferences and postponements since the September 2025 discovery of the body. Each hearing has produced new dates for the preliminary hearing, with the most recent setting July 21, 2026. These delays reflect both the volume of evidence and the defense’s successful motions for more review time.

Longer timelines also affect witness availability and the freshness of forensic samples. The defense benefits from any natural degradation in memory or testing conditions while it continues to press for complete discovery. Prosecutors, by contrast, must maintain momentum despite the repeated resets.

The pattern of continuances suggests the case will remain in a pretrial posture well into next year. That extended runway gives both sides time to file additional motions on evidence admissibility and possible alternative theories before a jury is ever seated.

Strategic implications

The defense’s current approach leaves several doors open. They can still pursue an alternative-suspect argument, attack the medical examiner’s conclusions, or challenge how the tool purchases were traced. None of these paths requires the team to change its core claim that Burke did not cause the death.

By keeping the focus on what the evidence does not yet show, the attorneys also preserve the option of filing motions to dismiss if discovery problems persist. That threat can influence how prosecutors handle future disclosures and whether they seek additional charges.

The high-profile nature of the representation adds another layer. Berk’s involvement signals that the defense will litigate aggressively on procedural grounds and will not treat the case as already decided by initial police reports. That stance affects both courtroom dynamics and media framing going forward.

Plea or trial outlook

No plea discussions have been reported publicly. The defense’s consistent not-guilty position and focus on missing evidence suggest they are preparing for a contested preliminary hearing rather than a quick resolution. That posture can shift if new forensic results strengthen or weaken the state’s case.

Observers following similar Los Angeles cases note that extended discovery fights often precede plea offers once both sides have a clearer picture of the evidence. The July 2026 hearing date will likely serve as the next major checkpoint for any movement in that direction.

Whatever path the case takes, the defense has already established the boundaries of its argument. D4vd’s attorneys will continue to maintain that the evidence does not show their client killed Celeste Rivas Hernandez, and they will use every available procedural tool to test the state’s case before it reaches a jury.

Next steps for the case

The coming months will center on whether prosecutors can deliver the remaining discovery in time for the July hearing. Any further delays will test the court’s patience and may prompt new defense motions. Observers will watch closely for the first public indication of an alternative-suspect theory or a formal challenge to the medical examiner’s findings.