Family Lawyer Says D4vd Hides Wealth, Should Pay Own Defense
The attorney for the family of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez argues that singer D4vd, accused of sexual assault, murder, and dismemberment, is not indigent and should not receive a taxpayer-funded public defender. The lawyer cites D4vd's billions of streams, millions in earnings, and alleged transfers of assets to his mother to shield them from civil suits. He says Los Angeles County residents should be outraged at footing the bill for the musician's defense.
The dispute centers on D4vd’s financial status after his private attorneys withdrew, leaving the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s office to represent him. Court testimony from a former financial manager indicated the singer earned roughly $10–11.5 million gross from music deals, and that properties in Texas were discussed for transfer to his mother to shield assets from potential civil claims. The family’s lawyer argues this contradicts indigency, while the public defender’s office has stated it is prepared to proceed. Burke, 21, pleaded not guilty on Monday to charges including sexual assault, murder, and mutilation of remains.
The case has drawn attention due to the stark contrast between D4vd’s commercial success—over 5 billion streams and 16 million monthly listeners on one platform—and his claim of inability to afford private counsel. The preliminary hearing also revealed the victim’s family attended every session but remained silent publicly. Their new statement emphasizes seeking justice for Celeste Rivas Hernandez, while the legal fight over funding now adds a procedural layer to an already high-profile criminal proceeding.
This funding dispute could shape public perception of both the justice system and celebrity accountability. If D4vd is deemed indigent despite substantial earnings, taxpayers may question resource allocation, potentially fueling cynicism about wealthy defendants exploiting legal aid. Conversely, the case may highlight how asset transfers complicate fair determination of eligibility, affecting trust in court processes. The victim’s family and broader audiences could see this as a test of whether financial maneuvering undermines justice, though the court’s decision will ultimately set a precedent for similar high-income defendants.