Lil Durk Trial Week 2 Recap: Defense Witness Calls Key Cooperator ‘A Liar and a Thief’
The second and final week of evidence in Lil Durk's murder-for-hire trial saw prosecutors close their case with further testimony from cooperating witnesses, while the rapper's defence hit back by attacking those witnesses' credibility. Durk is accused of directing his Only the Family crew to kill rival rapper Quando Rondo in revenge for the 2020 murder of his collaborator King Von; Rondo survived a 2022 shooting but his cousin, Lul Pab, was killed. Durk denies involvement, and the case largely hinges on whether jurors believe the testimony of co-conspirators who have already pleaded guilty.
Key witnesses included shooter Keith "Flacka" Jones, who said Durk promised him $1 million for the killing but never paid, and former assistant Kavon "Vonnie" Grant, who said Durk sounded "excited" on hearing of Pab's death. Defence lawyer Drew Findling aggressively cross-examined Grant using jailhouse recordings suggesting he saw the trial as his "time to shine" and hoped to profit from a TV deal, while defence witnesses later branded Grant and another cooperator liars and manipulators. The defence also called a former Alamo Records marketing executive to argue that violent lyrics prosecutors cited as evidence were commercial artistic expression rather than literal confessions.
- Lil Durk murder-for-hire trial's second week ended with prosecution resting its case.
- Defence witnesses branded key cooperating witness Kavon "Vonnie" Grant a liar and manipulator.
- Defence argued Durk's violent lyrics were commercial art, not literal confessions.
New here? Start with this
Lil Durk is a Chicago rapper whose case concerns a 2022 shooting in Los Angeles. Prosecutors say he arranged for members of his Only the Family crew to kill rival rapper Quando Rondo, in retaliation for the 2020 killing of Durk’s collaborator King Von. Rondo survived the shooting, but his cousin Lul Pab was killed; Durk denies involvement.
The case relies heavily on testimony from people who have admitted taking part in the alleged plot and pleaded guilty. One, Keith “Flacka” Jones, said Durk promised him $1 million for the killing, while former assistant Kavon “Vonnie” Grant described Durk’s reaction to news of Pab’s death. The defence disputes their accounts and says their credibility should be questioned.
Prosecutors have also pointed to violent lyrics as evidence, while the defence has argued that lyrics are part of commercial artistic expression and are not literal confessions. The jury must weigh the witnesses’ testimony and other evidence to decide whether prosecutors have proved the charge.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The prosecution’s case is that several people who admitted roles in the plot gave evidence linking Durk to a revenge killing, including testimony about a promised payment and his reaction to the victim’s death. Jurors could regard details from cooperating witnesses as mutually reinforcing and assess their credibility against the other evidence presented.
The case against
The defence’s case is that the prosecution relies heavily on witnesses who have pleaded guilty and may have strong incentives to shift blame, seek attention or profit from their accounts. Jurors could therefore doubt their testimony, while treating the cited lyrics as commercial artistic expression rather than evidence that Durk ordered a killing.