BREAKING: Lil Durk Found Not Guilty In Federal Quando Rondo Plot & Lul Pab Murder
Originally published by AllHipHop Read the original
Lil Durk has been acquitted in the federal murder-for-hire case accusing him of financing a deadly effort to kill Quando Rondo.
The jury returned its decision Friday, September 11, during its third day of deliberations in U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald’s courtroom.
Lil Durk, was found not guilty of all charges. Jurors convicted Deandre “DeDe” Wilson and David “Browneyez” Lindsey of stalking and stalking conspiracy.
Wilson and Lindsey were found not guilty of murder for hire. The acquittals followed a trial involving five charges against each defendant.
The charges included conspiracy to commit stalking, stalking Tyquian “Quando Rondo” Bowman with a dangerous weapon and stalking Saviay’a “Lul Pab” Robinson, resulting in death.
The defendants also faced conspiracy to use interstate facilities in a murder-for-hire resulting in death and using those facilities to commit murder-for-hire resulting in death.
The Justice Department accused Lil Durk of financing the operation as revenge for the death of Dayvon “King Von” Bennett.
King Von was shot outside an Atlanta nightclub on November 6, 2020, after confronting Quando Rondo. Prosecutors argued Lil Durk’s grief became a years-long criminal effort to locate and kill Quando Rondo.
The defense said the government transformed private anger, grief and rap lyrics into evidence of an agreement that witnesses never reliably described.
Drew Findling began Lil Durk’s closing argument by separating emotional language from criminal action.
“There is no expiration date on grief,” Findling said. “There is no finite time limit on pain, sadness, and anger that one feels with the sudden, unexpected tragic loss.”
Findling argued investigators reviewed Lil Durk’s private communications under the assumption that he was a “gangster with a lot of money.”
That phrase came from an LAPD detective’s interview with Keith “Flacka” Jones and became central to the defense attack against the investigation.
Findling told jurors the statement revealed bias that could have shaped how investigators interpreted everything connected to Lil Durk.
The defense said investigators selected hostile messages while ignoring the broader conversations that supplied context for those words.
One image from Lil Durk’s phone concerned Timothy “Lul Tim” Leeks, but Findling said it contained no accompanying instruction or threat.
Another exhibit appeared sinister until cross-examination revealed a larger thread containing a LeBron James tribute and an image of King Von with his son.
The defense also challenged the government’s treatment of Lil Durk’s music as evidence of an actual murder agreement.
Findling called producer Justin Gibson to explain how record companies approve, market and profit from violent music without treating every lyric as fact.
He argued that the same companies profiting from Lil Durk’s music had approved material prosecutors later presented as evidence against him.
“Executives were happy, shareholders were cashing in, IRAs were bursting at the seams for one of the biggest corporations on the planet Earth,” Findling said. “And yet those very same songs that are making people in country clubs line their pockets with green is being used against Durk Banks in this courtroom.”
Prosecutors argued Gibson ultimately helped them by acknowledging that certain lyrics addressed revenge against Quando Rondo.
The defense answered that acknowledging a song’s subject did not prove Lil Durk entered a stalking conspiracy or offered money for murder.
Findling said the lyrics never identified an agreement, a bounty or a plan to stalk Lul Pab.
The defense also attacked the government’s use of a short excerpt from Lil Durk’s interview with DJ Akademiks.
An FBI agent relied on approximately 56 seconds from the interview but admitted he had not reviewed the remaining three and a half hours.
“You don’t know what was in the other three and a half hours that you didn’t bother to do in a case of this magnitude,” Findling told jurors.
The defense said the government repeatedly used the same narrow approach with messages, music, videos and witness statements.
Lil Durk’s attorneys argued the physical evidence proved a shooting occurred but could not independently establish who authorized it.
Surveillance recordings showed two vehicles pursuing Quando Rondo’s Escalade before gunfire erupted near the Beverly Center on August 19, 2022.
Quando Rondo survived, but his 24-year-old cousin, Saviay’a “Lul Pab” Robinson, was killed.
Prosecutors used cellular data, GPS information, flights, hotel charges and transportation records to reconstruct movements surrounding the shooting.
The defense said those records showed locations and purchases but did not reveal what Lil Durk knew or intended.
The defense said prosecutors needed cooperating witnesses to add intent, authority and payment to records that could not speak for themselves.
Kavon “OTF Vonni” Grant, Kacey “OTF Jam” Hester and Keith “Flacka” Jones admitted criminal conduct before testifying against the defendants. Each man hoped his assistance would persuade prosecutors to support less prison time at sentencing.
OTF Vonni gave prosecutors their main connection to Lil Durk by claiming the rapper approved and directed the alleged operation.
The defense portrayed OTF Vonni as a fired assistant with Lil Durk’s financial information, cards, passwords and access to transportation.
A recorded telephone conversation captured OTF Vonni discussing activities he completed without other people learning about them.
“Certain things I did on my own, and they didn’t figure out, and I was doing it correctly,” OTF Vonni said.
Findling argued that statement supported the defense claim that OTF Vonni managed criminal activity independently and later attached Lil Durk’s name.
“Ladies and gentlemen, game, set, match,” Findling said. “That is the easiest pathway to reasonable doubt.”
Lil Durk’s lawyers also attacked investigators for failing to question witnesses who were near him and OTF Vonni during critical periods.
Justin Gibson and Devonte “DJ Bandz” Richmond traveled with the pair between California and Florida as the alleged Los Angeles plan developed.
Agents never questioned Gibson or DJ Bandz about conversations inside vehicles, aboard a private plane or at Lil Durk’s Encino residence.
“Nobody is interviewed. Nobody hears anything,” Findling said. “So you are resting your whole case on Vonni, the belief that Vonni is telling the truth.”
Findling said Lil Durk’s wife, mother-in-law, children and armed security personnel were also present at the Encino residence. Investigators did not ask those people about firearms, unfamiliar visitors, OTF Vonni’s movements or any discussion about Quando Rondo.
The defense also disputed OTF Vonni’s claim that a revenge plan began at a gathering immediately after King Von’s death.
Shekema Springfield, the mother of King Von’s son, testified that she stayed with his family for several days after the killing.
Springfield said Lil Durk and several alleged conspirators were not present, and she heard no discussion about killing Quando Rondo.
The defense argued that testimony directly contradicted OTF Vonni’s description of the conspiracy’s beginning.
OTF Jam supplied another major link by claiming Lil Durk would financially reward someone who killed Quando Rondo.
However, the defense said OTF Jam initially denied discussing Quando Rondo or Lul Tim with Lil Durk during his recorded interview.
More than two hours later, OTF Jam connected Lil Durk to an alleged payment.
Brian Steel asked jurors to examine what changed during the two hours and 18 minutes between those answers.
Flacka testified that he expected to receive as much as $1 million, although no document recorded that promise or showed a payment.
For the murder-for-hire charges, prosecutors needed to prove an agreement in which murder would occur in exchange for money or another economic benefit.
The judge instructed jurors that travel expenses alone could not establish a bounty.
The defense argued that hoping or expecting to receive money afterward could not replace proof of a bargain made before the killing.
Browneyez’s lawyer emphasized that OTF Jam testified there was “no discussion” before the attack and said nobody offered him payment.
The lawyer also noted that OTF Vonni had never met Browneyez before that weekend and never spoke with him.
Flacka admitted Browneyez said little during an alleged FaceTime call and that they listened to music while driving toward the airport.
The defense said presence aboard a flight or inside a vehicle could not prove knowledge of a murder plan.
Quando Rondo’s absence from the witness stand became another part of the defense argument against the stalking charges.
“Where is Quando Rondo?” Findling asked while challenging proof that the alleged conduct placed the intended target in reasonable fear.
Findling called Quando Rondo’s absence “the embodiment of reasonable doubt,” although prosecutors argued the attack itself established the required harm.
The defense maintained it did not need to identify who organized the shooting or explain every action shown in the records.
Its burden remained zero because prosecutors had to prove every element against each defendant.
Jurors began deliberating Wednesday, September 9, after receiving the final instructions and hearing arguments from all sides.
The five separate charges required jurors to evaluate each defendant’s conduct, knowledge, agreement and intent independently.
Their first disclosed questions arrived around 9 A.M. Thursday, September 10. The first note requested “verification/clarification” of the Court’s Instruction No. 18, addressing the conspiracy to commit stalking charge.
Fitzgerald reread the existing instruction after prosecutors and defense attorneys agreed that he should not add another explanation.
The jury’s second note asked for “the definition of the word ‘intent’ in the context of ‘intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate.’”
Fitzgerald told the panel no specialized legal definition applied and instructed jurors to use the word according to its ordinary meaning.
The questions showed that jurors were studying the required mental state, but they disclosed no vote or preference concerning any verdict.
The acquittals show jurors ultimately found the testimony and records insufficient to prove the murder for hire case.