The Lil Durk jury sent two notes to the judge Thursday morning asking him to clarify what “conspiracy” and “intent” mean in the charges against the rapper, and U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald declined to give them any wording beyond what is already in the instructions.
Durk, whose legal name is Durk Banks, is on trial in Los Angeles federal court on five counts tied to an August 2022 shooting near the Beverly Center. Prosecutors say he helped organize a plot to kill rapper Quando Rondo, legal name Tyquian Bowman, as retaliation for the November 2020 killing of King Von. Rondo survived. His cousin, Saviay’a “Lul Pab” Robinson, was killed. Durk has pleaded not guilty, as have his co-defendants Deandre “OTF DeDe” Wilson and David “Browneyez” Lindsey.
Jurors started deliberating Wednesday. The notes came in at 9 a.m. Thursday, filed in the court record as jury notes two and three. The first of the pair asked for clarification on a section of the instructions running nearly two full pages, covering the words “conspiracy,” “conspirator,” and “overt act” as they apply to the charge that the defendants conspired to stalk Quando Rondo. The second asked what “intent” means in the charge involving Robinson’s death.
Both of those terms carry real weight here, so it is worth breaking down what the Lil Durk jury is actually being asked to decide. A conspiracy in federal law is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. An overt act is some step taken to move that agreement forward, and it does not have to be a crime by itself. Under those rules, prosecutors do not have to prove Durk pulled a trigger or was anywhere near Los Angeles. They have to prove he agreed to the plan and that somebody took a step to carry it out.
Attorneys for both sides agreed the judge should not add new language to instructions they had already spent days fighting over. Fitzgerald agreed. For the first note, he simply re-read the lines the jury asked about. For the second, he told them the law does not supply a separate definition of “intent,” so they should use the word the way they normally would.
There is one more piece of the instructions that matters to how the Lil Durk jury can reach a verdict, and it was decided before closing arguments. Durk’s defense asked the judge to limit what is called Pinkerton liability as it applies to Robinson. Pinkerton is a legal rule that says a member of a conspiracy can be held responsible not only for the agreement itself but for crimes another member commits in carrying it out. Durk’s attorneys argued that an alleged agreement to stalk Quando Rondo should not make him responsible for what happened to Robinson, who was traveling with Rondo, because stalking requires intent aimed at a specific person. Prosecutors argued jurors could reasonably find Robinson’s death was a natural consequence of a plan to track and kill Rondo. The judge sided with the government and kept the instruction in.
That is the backdrop against which the jury asked its questions, and it explains why the definitions they asked about are not housekeeping.
Here is what the notes do not tell anybody. They do not show whether the panel is leaning toward conviction or acquittal. They do not mean jurors are deadlocked. They do not mean any count has been decided. They show which words the jury is slowing down on, and nothing beyond that.
The panel had also sent a note Wednesday evening asking for all of the evidence in digital form. That material was not ready until Thursday morning, which is part of why deliberations restarted late. Durk was in the courtroom for that hearing and appeared relaxed, shaking hands with his attorneys and acknowledging his mother in the gallery.
Thursday ended without a verdict. Deliberations resume Friday, with Durk remaining in federal custody. If he is convicted as charged, he faces a maximum of life in federal prison. The death penalty is not on the table.
