Judge Invokes King Henry II During Lil Durk Bounty Debate
Originally published by AllHipHop Read the original
A federal judge invoked King Henry II and one of medieval England’s most notorious murders while examining whether Lil Durk authorized an alleged bounty without personally delivering the order.
U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald raised the historical comparison Friday, one day after Lil Durk and his two co-defendants rested their cases.
The discussion revealed how prosecutors plan to connect Lil Durk to the alleged $1 million reward for killing Tyquian “Quando Rondo” Bowman during Tuesday’s closing arguments.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ian Yanniello said Kacey “OTF Jam” Hester testified that Lil Durk “would essentially make anybody straight if they were to kill Quando Rondo.”
Keith “Flacka” Jones also testified that Deondre “DeDe” Wilson offered money while identifying Lil Durk as the person willing to pay. Flacka claimed Lil Durk later directed him to Boonie Moe when he sought compensation.
Prosecutors do not believe they must prove Lil Durk personally communicated the alleged offer. They contend DeDe or Kavon “OTF Vonni” Grant could have presented it with his authority.
“How could Mr. Grant possibly follow through on that bounty unless he had the tacit support of Mr. Banks?” Fitzgerald asked.
The judge said jurors could find that OTF Vonni acted independently and acquit Lil Durk. Alternatively, they could find him incapable of backing that promise without approval.
Fitzgerald recalled King Henry II’s conflict with Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Canterbury Cathedral’s account says historians still do not know whether Henry intended for the knights to kill Becket.
Fitzgerald described Henry’s defense as essentially claiming he was pleased with the outcome but had no involvement.
“Here in the United States we don’t have kings,” Fitzgerald said. “And just because Mr. Banks is a celebrity, I don’t think the jury is going to literally let him get away with murder.”
The comment was not a finding that Lil Durk ordered the shooting. Fitzgerald stressed that jurors must evaluate the witnesses and decide whether prosecutors proved their allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
Lil Durk’s attorney Christy O’Connor argued that knowing someone invoked the rapper’s name was different from intending to finance a killing.
“My concern is the difference between knowing other people are offering bounties, maybe even in your name, that aren’t true, and intending yourself,” O’Connor said.
Fitzgerald agreed that awareness alone would not be enough. He said Lil Durk would be innocent if OTF Vonni falsely promised a reward without his backing.
The exchange sharpens the central question behind the government’s murder-for-hire case: whether Lil Durk directed the operation or OTF Vonni used his employer’s name and reputation while acting independently.
Prosecutors accuse Lil Durk of seeking revenge after Dayvon “King Von” Bennett was killed during a November 2020 confrontation involving Quando Rondo’s entourage. The August 2022 Los Angeles attack missed Quando Rondo but killed his cousin, Saviay’a “Lul Pab” Robinson.
Lil Durk has pleaded not guilty to five federal counts covering stalking conspiracy, stalking, murder-for-hire conspiracy and murder-for-hire resulting in death. Both sides rested Thursday.
Jurors return Tuesday, September 8, for final instructions and closing arguments before deliberations begin.