Lil Durk Murder-for-Hire Trial Goes to Jury: The 5 Counts, Evidence and Stakes

Durk Banks, the Grammy-winning Chicago rapper known as Lil Durk, has reached the point in his federal murder-for-hire trial where the lawyers stop arguing and the jury takes over. After closing arguments on September 8, 2026, jurors were told to return to federal court in Los Angeles Wednesday morning to select a foreperson and begin deliberating. As of publication, no verdict had been publicly reported.

The case is not a simple question of whether Banks personally fired a gun. Prosecutors do not claim that he was one of the masked shooters at the August 2022 attack near the Beverly Center. Their theory is that Banks used his money, influence and position around Only The Family, or OTF, to finance and direct an alleged plot targeting rapper Quando Rondo, whose legal name is Tyquian Bowman. Bowman survived. His cousin Saviay’a Robinson was killed.

Banks has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers say the government built its case around cooperating witnesses with powerful incentives to blame a famous defendant, and they argue that Banks’ former assistant Kavon Grant acted on his own. That conflict — between a circumstantial leadership case and a defense centered on witness credibility and reasonable doubt — is now in the jury’s hands.

Key takeaways

The jury is deciding five federal counts tied to stalking and an alleged murder-for-hire plot; a separate murder-in-aid-of-racketeering count was severed and is not part of this jury’s decision.
Prosecutors say Banks financed and directed the plot, pointing to travel and hotel payments, messages, surveillance evidence and testimony from three cooperating witnesses.
The defense says those witnesses cannot be trusted and argues former Banks assistant Kavon Grant had both the access and personal motive to organize the attack without Banks’ knowledge.
Banks did not testify. His attorneys called defense witnesses and focused heavily on inconsistencies, cooperation deals and alternative explanations for key messages.
No verdict had been reported at publication. Banks remains presumed innocent unless jurors find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Where the Lil Durk trial stands now

The Central District of California’s official calendar lists United States v. Deondre Dontrell Wilson, David Brian Lindsey, Durk Banks for September 9 as “JURY TRIAL – DAY 14” before U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. The federal court calendar confirms the proceeding is active today and identifies the three defendants whose cases are being tried together.

Closing arguments took place Tuesday. Current courtroom reporting says jurors were sent home afterward and instructed to return Wednesday morning to begin deliberating. That makes the latest Yahoo-syndicated headline — describing a “pivotal moment” as the jury takes over — broadly correct, but the more precise description is that Banks’ federal murder-for-hire and stalking case has reached jury deliberations. It is not accurate to report that a verdict has been reached until the court announces one.

The jury’s task is especially consequential because the government’s charges include offenses that can expose Banks to a sentence of up to life in federal prison if he is convicted. Sentencing would not happen immediately after a guilty verdict; a conviction would start a separate post-trial and sentencing process.

What Lil Durk is accused of

The prosecution’s case grows out of a deadly shooting on August 19, 2022, near the Beverly Center in Los Angeles. Federal prosecutors allege that the intended target was Quando Rondo. Instead, gunfire killed Rondo’s cousin Saviay’a Robinson, who was traveling with him.

The government has framed the attack as retaliation connected to the November 2020 death of rapper King Von, whose legal name was Dayvon Bennett. Von was a close friend and musical associate of Banks. He was killed during a confrontation in Atlanta involving people associated with Quando Rondo.

When federal authorities first announced Banks’ arrest in October 2024, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California alleged that Banks ordered an attempt on the rival rapper’s life. A later superseding indictment alleged that OTF-related resources were used to pay for travel and other logistics. Those statements are prosecutors’ allegations, not findings of fact. Banks has pleaded not guilty and denies responsibility through his defense.

During the 2026 trial, the case was narrowed. Banks had faced additional racketeering-related allegations, but Judge Fitzgerald severed a murder-in-aid-of-racketeering count from the trial now before this jury. That distinction matters: jurors deliberating this week were not asked to decide that separate racketeering count.

The five counts the jury is deciding

Current trial reporting identifies five counts before the jury:

Count	What the allegation concerns
Conspiracy to commit stalking	An alleged agreement to stalk the intended target as part of the planned attack.
Stalking Quando Rondo using a dangerous weapon	The alleged stalking of Tyquian “Quando Rondo” Bowman involving a dangerous weapon.
Stalking Saviay’a Robinson resulting in death	The alleged stalking conduct that prosecutors say resulted in Robinson’s death.
Conspiracy to use interstate commerce facilities in a murder-for-hire resulting in death	The alleged agreement to use interstate travel, communications or other facilities to carry out a paid killing.
Use of interstate commerce facilities in a murder-for-hire resulting in death	The substantive murder-for-hire offense tied to the fatal shooting.

The wording is important because the prosecution does not need to prove that Banks personally pulled a trigger to advance its theory of criminal liability. The government argued in closing that the shooting only made sense because of Banks’ alleged leadership and financing. The defense argues that this leap — from knowing or associating with the people involved to intentionally joining the plot — is exactly where reasonable doubt exists.

What prosecutors say ties Banks to the alleged plot

The prosecution presented a combination of financial, digital, surveillance and witness evidence rather than a claim that Banks was physically present at the shooting.

One part of the government’s theory centers on travel. Prosecutors say OTF members and associates traveled from Chicago to California on August 18, 2022, the day before the fatal shooting. During closing arguments, prosecutors told jurors that plane tickets and a hotel stay were charged to Banks-linked credit cards. They argued those payments showed that Banks financed the team sent west.

Prosecutors also highlighted a text message from August 18 in which Banks warned against booking flights under names connected to him. The government presented the message as evidence of concealment. The defense offered a different explanation: Banks’ lawyers said the message concerned travel to a friend’s wedding in Mexico, a trip he ultimately did not make. The jury must decide what weight, if any, that message deserves in the context of all the other evidence.

Surveillance evidence was another major piece of the government’s presentation. Jurors saw material tracing movements connected to the group before the shooting and footage surrounding the attack. Prosecutors argued that the men had been tracking Rondo before masked shooters opened fire on his vehicle.

Then there were the cooperating witnesses. Three men who admitted roles connected to the attack — Kasey “OTF Jam” Hester, Kavon “OTF Vonnie” Grant and Keith Jones — testified for the government. Their accounts differed in detail, but prosecutors used them to argue that Banks was not a distant celebrity whose name was attached after the fact. They said he was involved in directing, funding or encouraging the effort.

Grant, Banks’ former assistant, testified about alleged directions and post-shooting communications involving Banks. Jones testified about an alleged promised payment for the killing. Hester described being recruited for the California trip and connected Banks to communications surrounding it. Those are witness claims that jurors must assess; the defense spent substantial time attacking each witness’s credibility.

Why the defense says there is reasonable doubt

Banks’ attorneys Brian Steel and Drew Findling did not merely argue that prosecutors lacked a video or recording of Banks ordering a hit. Their larger argument is that the government’s narrative depends on people who had serious criminal exposure of their own and could benefit from cooperation.

In closing arguments, the defense emphasized that the major cooperating witnesses had pleaded guilty and were seeking sentencing consideration. Steel told jurors that the witnesses had an obvious reason to make Banks central to the story: identifying the most famous defendant could make their cooperation more valuable.

The defense focused especially on Grant. Banks’ lawyers portrayed him as a former assistant who had access to Banks’ credit cards and business logistics, a close relationship with King Von, and his own motive for retaliation after Von’s death. They argued that Grant could make others believe he was acting with Banks’ authority even if Banks had never authorized the attack.

Jurors also heard a jail recording in which Grant described some actions as things he took on his own, which the defense used to support its alternative theory. Banks’ lawyers argued that firing Grant months after the shooting was inconsistent with the idea that Grant had successfully carried out Banks’ orders.

Hester’s credibility was challenged as well. Defense lawyers cross-examined him about his criminal history, his cooperation arrangement and discrepancies involving phone calls. The defense called Hester’s wife, who disputed a key account about a call Hester said helped recruit him for the trip. Other defense witnesses attacked Grant’s honesty.

The defense’s position can be reduced to a simple question the jury must answer: even if jurors believe the shooting was a planned retaliatory attack carried out by people connected to OTF, has the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Banks knowingly joined, directed or financed that criminal agreement?

Why the cooperating witnesses matter so much

The trial is unusual because the government has both objective evidence — travel records, messages, payments and surveillance — and insiders who say they can explain what that evidence meant. The defense argues that the objective evidence is ambiguous without the cooperators, while prosecutors argue the records corroborate the cooperators.

Witness	Why prosecutors say the testimony matters	Main defense challenge
Kasey “OTF Jam” Hester	Described recruitment for the trip and communications around the alleged plan.	Defense attacked his criminal history, cooperation incentives and inconsistencies involving phone-call details.
Kavon “OTF Vonnie” Grant	Former Banks assistant who described alleged directions and post-shooting communications.	Defense says Grant had independent motive, access to Banks’ resources and a history of deception, making him the real organizer.
Keith Jones	Testified about an alleged promised payment and communications involving Banks.	Defense emphasized his own criminal exposure and argued his earlier accounts did not center Banks.

Cooperating witnesses are common in federal conspiracy cases, but their testimony is not automatically accepted as true. Jurors can consider motives, plea agreements, prior inconsistent statements, corroboration and the rest of the evidentiary record when deciding how much to believe.

What prosecutors argued in closing

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ian Yanniello framed the case around retaliation, resources and leadership. He told jurors the government was not claiming Banks was physically on the ground with a firearm. Instead, prosecutors said the attack flowed from Banks’ money, influence and grievance against Rondo.

The prosecution used surveillance images, messages, travel evidence and testimony to build a timeline from the defendants’ arrival in California to the shooting. It argued that the group followed Rondo, waited for an opportunity and ultimately fired into his vehicle at a busy gas station, killing Robinson.

In rebuttal, prosecutors also pointed to a later group message in which Banks discussed Hester potentially cooperating with law enforcement. The government argued that the message made more sense if Banks knew Hester possessed incriminating information. The defense disputes that inference and says prosecutors repeatedly interpreted ambiguous communications in the most damaging possible way.

The prosecution’s closing theme was therefore not “Banks was the shooter.” It was that an alleged paid retaliation scheme depended on his direction and resources.

What the jury has to decide — and what it does not

Jurors are not being asked whether they like Banks’ music, approve of OTF, or believe people around Banks committed crimes. Nor are they being asked to decide the severed racketeering count in this proceeding.

They have to decide whether federal prosecutors proved each charged offense against each defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. That means the jury can reach different conclusions on different counts and different defendants. A federal criminal verdict on a count must be unanimous.

For Banks, the central factual issue is participation. The government says his money, communications and relationships show that he knowingly led and financed the alleged plot. The defense says those same circumstances are compatible with a successful artist paying for people around him, while Grant independently used access and status to organize revenge of his own.

That is also why witness credibility matters so much. If jurors reject the cooperators but still believe the financial and digital evidence independently proves Banks’ involvement, they could still side with prosecutors. If they think the objective evidence becomes too ambiguous without those witnesses, the defense’s reasonable-doubt argument becomes much stronger.

What happens next in Lil Durk’s case

Once jurors begin deliberating, there is no fixed timetable for a verdict. They can ask the judge questions, request that evidence or testimony be reviewed where permitted, and continue deliberating until they reach unanimous decisions or tell the court they cannot agree.

There are several possible outcomes. The jury can acquit Banks on all counts, convict on all counts, or return a mixed verdict. If jurors become genuinely deadlocked on one or more counts after further instructions and deliberation, the judge could eventually declare a mistrial on those unresolved charges. That is not the same as an acquittal, and prosecutors could potentially seek another trial on hung counts.

If Banks is convicted, the case would proceed toward sentencing and post-trial motions. Current reporting says his maximum exposure can reach life in federal prison. If he is acquitted on the five counts in this trial, that would resolve those charges, but readers should not confuse this proceeding with the separate racketeering-related allegations that were severed before trial.

Until the jury returns a verdict, any social-media claim that Banks has “won,” “lost,” been “found guilty” or been “freed” should be treated cautiously unless it is confirmed by the federal court or credible reporters in the courtroom.

Why this case is about more than a celebrity headline

The trial shows how an alleged conspiracy involving a celebrity can be built from ordinary business evidence. Prosecutors relied on credit-card charges, travel bookings, group messages, surveillance and insider testimony to argue that Banks’ resources connected him to the plot. The defense says those same records reflect the logistics of a successful touring artist and could be used by trusted staff without proving that Banks knowingly joined a murder agreement.

That distinction is one of the most important issues in the case. Association is not itself the charged crime. The jury must decide whether the government proved the required criminal agreement and Banks’ knowing participation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bottom line

Lil Durk’s federal murder-for-hire trial has reached its most consequential stage. Prosecutors say the rapper financed and directed a retaliatory plot aimed at Quando Rondo that resulted in the death of Saviay’a Robinson. Banks’ defense says the government’s case depends on unreliable cooperators and that former assistant Kavon Grant acted independently.

The jury has five counts to decide. Banks has pleaded not guilty, and no verdict had been publicly reported when this article was published. The next reliable update should come from the court or credentialed courtroom reporters — not speculation about how long deliberations are taking.

This article will be updated if the jury returns a verdict or the court announces a material development.

Sources

For more court and crime coverage, visit our Crime section.

Back to blog