D4vd Promised $1,000 in Jail. Then His Lawyers Said No.

Earlier today, my friend Alyssa from Law&Crime invited me to join an interview with Jesse Weber about D4vd, whose legal name is David Anthony Burke.

I had not studied the case much. My focus is white-collar crime, not murder cases. But something came up during his time in the Los Angeles County jail that I do know something about.

It concerns a promise for $1,000.

First, some background.

Burke has pleaded not guilty to charges that he murdered 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, mutilated her remains and concealed them in the front trunk of a Tesla registered to him. In July, a judge ordered him to stand trial. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office says he could face death or life in prison without parole if convicted as charged, although prosecutors had not yet decided whether to seek the death penalty. These remain allegations, and Burke is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. The district attorney's July 27 announcement describes the charges and the status of the case.

The allegations are horrific. I am not going to use a few jailhouse letters to tell you whether he committed the crime. The letters cannot answer that question.

What caught my attention was what reportedly happened between D4vd and another incarcerated person named Anthony, or Tony.

The reported promise

According to reports about the letters, Tony had a job serving food inside the jail. People sometimes call an incarcerated person with a job a trustee.

The two apparently became friendly. They exchanged letters, prayed for one another and sang a little jingle back and forth.

I do not find that part unusual.

Jail can be a desperate and hopeless environment. People form friendships. They pray together. They talk about God. They look for some way to get through the day.

Then D4vd reportedly offered $1,000 to help Tony make bail. The story was that Tony wanted to get out because his brother needed surgery.

It is easy to hear that and assume something nefarious. Maybe the money was supposed to buy protection or information. Maybe D4vd expected something in return.

Maybe none of that is true.

It could have been as simple as, hey man, you have been good to me, we pray together, your brother is in crisis and I want to help.

I do not know.

When I was in federal prison, my mom sent commissary money for several years to some of the men I served time with. There was nothing nefarious about it. She was trying to help people I knew.

So I am not troubled simply because D4vd may have wanted to give someone money. I also cannot tell you what his intentions were from a letter.

The problem came before the money ever moved.

He apparently made the commitment first and spoke with his lawyers afterward.

Then the lawyers said no

After D4vd spoke with his lawyers, the money did not come.

In a letter that circulated publicly, he reportedly apologized to Tony for leaving him hanging. He explained that his lawyers told him he could not help in the way he wanted to at that time. He apologized repeatedly, thanked Tony for looking out for him and wrote that he was praying for Tony and his family.

I can understand why lawyers representing someone awaiting a murder trial might object to a financial arrangement with another incarcerated person.

We do not know their exact reason. We do not know whether they questioned the story, worried about how the payment would look or simply told their client to stop making financial commitments inside the jail.

Questions could follow a payment like this.

Was it a gift? Was it a loan? Did Tony do something for him? Was something expected later? Where would the money go? Who would send it?

Those questions do not establish wrongdoing. They explain why lawyers may want nothing to do with the arrangement.

I think the lawyers made the right call based on the limited facts that have been reported.

But their decision created another problem for D4vd. He had already given his word.

Your word follows you inside

In the free world, people make commitments they cannot keep all the time. Then they avoid the person. They stop answering calls. They change their routine. Unless they work together, attend the same church or belong to the same club, they may not have to see each other again.

It is harder to disappear inside.

You may live a few yards from the person. You may eat in the same chow hall, live on the same floor, watch television in the same room or use the same email area.

You may have to look at him at breakfast, lunch and dinner after telling him the money was coming.

People also talk. One person hears that you promised $1,000. Someone else hears that you have money. Another person hears that your lawyers stopped you from paying. By the time the story gets around, it may not sound much like the original conversation.

I have not seen evidence that Tony threatened D4vd, retaliated against him or demanded anything. I would not announce that D4vd placed his life in danger. The public facts do not support that claim.

I would say that he may have created an unnecessary problem for himself.

Do not promise what you do not control

This part extends well beyond money.

Do not promise commissary before you know whether you can send it.

Do not tell someone your family will do something for him before speaking with your family.

Do not promise a job when he comes home if the decision belongs to somebody else.

Do not offer a favor that depends on your lawyer, spouse, business partner or friend approving it later.

If you do not control the decision, slow down before making the commitment.

That advice could matter to someone serving 60 days for tax fraud, someone facing a drug charge or someone awaiting a murder trial. The facts and risks will be different, but the basic problem is easy to understand.

D4vd may have meant every word when he offered the money. His apology may also have been sincere. I cannot know either from what has circulated publicly.

What I can see is the sequence: He reportedly made the promise. Then he asked his lawyers. Then he had to write a letter explaining why he could not follow through.