Law&Crime Sidebar - D4vd Likely To Be Charged with Murder: New Report

Episode Date: December 30, 2025

A new report is raising major questions in the investigation into the death of Celeste Rivas Hernandez. Multiple outlets are now suggesting that singer D4vd could soon face formal criminal charges — possibly even a murder indictment — in connection with the teen whose body was reportedly found inside a vehicle registered in his name. Authorities have not confirmed any charges, and key details remain sealed, but new reporting indicates a grand jury may be considering whether to hand down an indictment. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down how the legal process could play out if charges are ultimately filed with trial attorney Rich Schoenstein.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. In a brand new report, it is being suggested that singer David may about to be indicted, formally charged with murder in connection with the death of Celeste Rivas Hernandez, the young girl whose dead body was reportedly found in his car. Now, if you're shocked, if you're confused by this, if you're wondering what to make of this, you aren't alone. We are going to break down this new reporting and, if true, what this means and how it could play out.

Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber. Okay, so as you know, we have been on top of this story from the very beginning. We plan to cover every aspect of it as it develops. And the reason that we can do that is because of the incredible support that we get from our sponsor, Morgan and Morgan, America's largest personal injury law firm, a firm with over 1,000 attorneys who have recovered 25 billion. for more than 500,000 clients. In fact, in the past few months alone, you have a client in Florida

that received $12 million when insurance offered just $350,000. Out in Pennsylvania, another client was awarded $26 million. That is, 40 times the insurer's offer. And Morgan and Morgan, they make it so easy to fight for what you deserve. You can even start a claim from your phone. So if you're injured, you can start a claim at for the people.com slash LC Sidebar. You can click the link below or you can scan the QR code on screen. What an update in the David and Celeste Rivas Hernandez investigation, because after all of these months, after speculation, after reporting about grand juries, after a back and forth on whether singer David is in fact the suspect or not in connection with the death of this 14-year-old girl, Celeste Rivas Hernandez, who was found in a Tesla reportedly registered to the romantic homicide singer back in September in L.A. After all of that, now TMZ is reporting that he will likely face murder charges. Now, I have to take a second to explain how confusing this is, if true, okay?

I say if true, because obviously, there is no way to officially confirm this. Authorities are not going to confirm this. I mean, the New York Post just reported that they reached out to a Los Angeles district attorney's office spokesperson who said the case hasn't been presented to the office. But TMZ is reporting that this is likely that David. could be charged with murder because the reported grand jury hearing this case may be asked to hand down an indictment. Now, assuming for a moment that there is a grand jury, and I think we can, you know, safely

say that may be true. There was reporting about a grand jury and certain witnesses testifying because they appeared in the courthouse like David's manager Robert Morgan Roth. So assuming that reporting is true, you know, you can assume that perhaps a grand jury has been impaneled. But we always thought that it was an investigative grand jury. jury. This is different. An investigative grand jury is one that helps to gather evidence, subpoena documents, compel people to testify, but they don't actually return an indictment. And when

I say an indictment, formal charges. But now, TMZ is reporting that their unidentified sources claim no. The jury that has allegedly been hearing evidence for the past several weeks is one that can vote to return back an indictment. And their sources tell them that authorities believe David was involved in Celeste's death. So even if it is true that there is a grand jury and this is a grand jury that can indict someone, do we know for sure that it would be David that would be the subject of an indictment? And do we know that it would be for murder? No. But let me lay this out for a second. Because last month, and what makes this confusing, and I want to put it all into context, last month, the LAPD came out with a statement that said, quote, the vehicle, talking

about the Tesla where Celeste had been found. The vehicle had been parked at the location from which it was towed for several weeks, so Ms. Rivas Hernandez may have been deceased for several weeks before the discovery of her body. The Los Angeles County Medical Examiner has not yet determined the cause or manner of Ms. Rivas Hernandez's death. As such, it remains unclear whether there is any criminal culpability beyond the concealment of her body, meaning there might not be a homicide charge. And then more recently, the LAPD told KTLA that they stand by that prior release. So if that's the case, why the change, right? I mean, if it's true, David is now being considered for homicide charges, what happened? Or, by the way, is he going to be indicted in connection

with just the disposal or concealment of her body? Maybe he won't be indicted at all. But one of the complicating factors is whether something happened in the autopsy findings, right? Was there something in the toxicology reports? Was there something in the ME's reports? Was there something about cause and manner of death that changed the whole scenario? Remember, the cause and manner of death hasn't been revealed. The LAPD successfully petitioned the court to seal the medical examiner's records related to Celeste death. The LAPD said in a statement that this was done, quote, only to ensure detectives from robbery homicide division, learned of important information surrounding her death before the media and the public. The order was not sought to undermine transparency. But the

bottom line is, is we don't know if those findings led to a different conclusion. Did things change a bit? Yeah. It was reported that David was being considered a suspect by police, that they were looking at this as a homicide. To be clear, though, that wasn't officially confirmed by authorities. What they did confirm in a statement over Thanksgiving was the following. The Los Angeles Police Department is aware of the recent stories posted by various media outlets about the David Celeste Revis investigation and would like to dispel some misinformation. contained in their reporting. The body of Celeste Revis was not frozen when it was discovered on September 8th, 2025. She had not been decapitated. We have evidence that David traveled to the

Santa Barbara area sometime during the spring of 2025. The reason for that trip is still under investigation, and we've drawn no conclusions at this point about the relevance of the trip to this case. So yeah, that release was done to correct the record on some reporting on the state of Celeste body, but most importantly about that, the reason I brought it up, they also mentioned this. apparent trip that David took. So that was big. That was confirmation. That was seeming confirmation that they were looking into David in some capacity. And also according to reporting from outlets like Fox L.A., David stopped cooperating with authorities. He also reportedly lawyered up that he retained renowned criminal defense attorney Blair Burke. And also on

note, we don't know where David is, right? He hasn't been publicly seen after he canceled his tour in the wake of Celeste body being found. But you go back to this. You go back to this. You go back to this report that he may likely be indicted for murder. That is major. And if true, it sits a whole new chapter in this case. And potentially, potentially provides a lot of answers as to what may have happened to Celeste. The girl who disappeared in 2024 when she was just 13 years old, was allegedly in some sort of relationship with the 20-year-old singer. And I will also note that it's been reported that seasoned homicide prosecutor, Beth Silverman, is spearheading this grand jury presentation. Actually, when you go back to Morgan Roth, so the guy who apparently

manages David, runs the record label, the touring company, TMZ reported that Morgan Roth was seen outside of a courtroom and was overheard telling his lawyer that the DA, so presumably Silverman, quote, she was very pushy on why it didn't call police. And I said, I feel like I didn't have the responsibility to do that and just wanted to continue with the tour. Now, this is all reported. We can't confirm it ourselves, what was said, what wasn't said. But we have to talk about this. And I will also say, according to TMZ, it was overheard in that hallway that this grand jury could be hearing evidence till February. So even if an indictment or potential indictment was on the horizon, we may not see it soon. All right. So I want to

bring on my friend, trial attorney, Rich Schoenstein, to talk about this. Rich, you know, a lot of this is speculation. A lot of this is reporting based on what we're seeing. What do you make of it? What do you make of the reporting? I laid out how confusing this is. how it's a little bit of backlash. It seems to be inconsistent with what we've seen in the past. But do you think that this is a realistic possibility? Right now, we're talking about potentially this grand jury indicting David for murder. What do you make of this reporting? I think it's a possibility. And I agree with you. It's very speculative because you don't really know what a grand jury is going to do until they do it. It's not a live proceeding. We don't have

access. We don't know for a fact all of the evidence that's being presented or what the purpose even is. The initial reports had been, I think, that this was what we call an investigative grand jury, right? So the idea there is you have a lot of witnesses or potential witnesses who don't want to talk to authorities. This may shock you, but some people don't like talking to the police, especially if it's high profile matters. So you convene a grand jury so you can subpoena. of people, bring them in, swear them under oath, put them under penalty of perjury, and question them in front of a grand jury. That's the power of an investigative grand jury. And that's what we thought initially was happening here. Unless the reporting was wrong, unless they really

wasn't an investigative grand jury, and it was a grand jury that was tasked with, you know, securing an indictment. Or there is a second grand jury that's been impaneled after the investigative grand jury or there is no grand jury or there's still just an investigative grand jury that won't release an indictment. But, you know, I guess the question is why that changed. That's confusing. If it changed and listen, I think all of the possibilities you just laid out are out there. It might have been a regular grand jury from day one. This might be a new grand jury, they might have changed it. But if it changed from an investigation to seeking an indictment, then that leads me to believe that the prosecutors think they have gathered enough

evidence to sustain an indictment and to prosecute the case. That would be the thing that changed, the amount of evidence the prosecutors had. Now, I have to ask you if this reporting is true, why they now believe, again, we don't know for sure, but why there could be a murder charge, why this is a homicide. You know, what would have led them to conclude that because there was prior statements that indicated there might be no crime other than concealment of a body. There was talk about, was Celeste's death accidental? Was it an overdose? We don't know for sure. But I do wonder, was there something, let's say, from the M.E.'s report, the toxicology findings that would indicate that this was a homicide, that this was murder, that David was allegedly

responsible. We don't know for sure. But what do you think? If this reporting is true, why potentially seek a murder charge against him now? What changed? So I don't think it's strictly something from the ME report because you would have had that early on. If it was just a matter of toxicology and you thought, well, this is not the kind of drug someone would voluntarily take. This is something that was given to them.

I don't know that you would have gone through all of this with the grand jury. You probably would have known that just from the chemist. the chemicals. So what it suggests to me is that some witness or witnesses have come in and said something. Maybe the investigators have a more cohesive story about motive. Maybe they have some circumstantial evidence that they didn't have at the beginning that would make this look more like a murder than an accident. You know, anytime the story is potentially just someone was trying to cover up a body, you're always going to look at that. real hard. You're always going to look at that and be like, really? Were they just getting rid of a

body or are they involved here on a somewhat more nefarious level? So there's all sorts of different kinds of evidence that they could have come up with. Since it's a grand jury proceeding, I sort of lean to thinking it must be something testimonial. You could 100% be right and you laid it out perfectly. I do wonder, though, is there a possibility? And again, we don't know this for sure, that if drugs were involved, can you prosecute somebody for murder or manslaughter if you supplied the drugs to someone and they died? Yeah, I don't think you usually see that. If it's two people voluntarily using drugs and one of them dies, you don't generally see criminal charges against the other person for being the supplier. Now, we're talking about a minor victim here, right? So

that adds another level here. Possibly there could be some sort of charge for supplying narcotics to a minor. That might be independently a crime that would be different if that person had been an adult. But generally speaking, when two people are using and one of them overdoses, I don't think you see charges against the survivor. And there is a possibility that it's not a murder charge or not a homicide charge, but a charge related to the concealment or disposal of the body, right? I mean, we could be talking about a possibility where he is criminally charged, but not necessarily directly in connection with her death. Sure, 100%. They could go after for some other charge for hiding the body, for interfering with the investigation, for all sorts of

things. And by the way, Jesse, you know, part of this, too, is the suspect's conduct. Has he been cooperative? What has he told authorities? Do the authorities believe that he's cooperating, or do they think they're getting the runaround from him? Right? That adds a level to what they're looking at. And I want to add something else as well. Whatever the potential charge is or could be or allegedly is, the likelihood that a grand jury here would return an indictment is hot, right? I mean, explain to our viewers why it is more likely than not that a grand jury would return an indictment given the evidence that was presented. Well, a grand jury is a completely one-sided proceeding. The government presents its evidence,

its theory of the case, and asks the grand jury to return an indictment. You don't hear from the defense. Nobody gets cross-examined by the defense. The defense doesn't put on witnesses. And because of that, there is a tendency for the government to get an indictment from a grand jury when they want. There's that old saying, you can indict a ham sandwich, which loosely means you can get an indictment anytime you want. I don't think that's really true. We've seen even recently sometimes grand juries put off the government and say, no, that's not enough. We're not doing it. But the majority of the time you will get an indictment when you seek one with the grand jury. The other thing is prosecutors tend to have at least enough evidence to bring charges if they're

seeking an indictment in front of a grand jury. It doesn't mean they have enough evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but they have enough evidence to make the charge. And just to circle back here, there is grounds to this. There is an idea that he could be criminally charged because if you couple it with, you know, law enforcement LAPD, making that statement that they have evidence that David traveled to the Santa Barbara area sometime during the spring of 2025. We're still trying to understand the reason about that. It was still under investigation. But the fact that they mentioned that the property that he was allegedly staying at in L.A., which was reportedly near where the Tesla was found. And by the way, her body

found in a Tesla, reportedly his Tesla, reportedly registered to him, the fact that TMZ and other outlets reported that his manager had apparently or allegedly been testifying in front of the grand jury. There is a strong indication. If you were representing David, would you say, you know, be on the lookout, it is a strong possibility that you could be facing a charge at this point, given everything that we've seen being reported right now? Well, sure. You would always advise your client, if there's a grand jury proceeding going on, then your client is a suspect, whether that's capital S suspect or one of many suspects, you would always give your client advice about that, about the grand jury proceeding and what's going on, that it is a possibility.

And again, harkening back to what we just talked about, that it's relatively easy to get an indictment from the grand jury. And certainly here, there's been a lot of public speculation and stuff in the press that he might be a suspect. So I'm sure he's been advised accordingly. Would it be just him who would be indicted or if an indictment comes down, you would see multiple defendants because there was talk about potentially a second suspect. Yeah, I mean, now you're getting even deeper into the speculation. So I don't know. It depends what the investigation. Well, I guess traditionally speaking, like if an indictment comes down in a case like this, would they do it everybody that they can charge at one time,

they would? Or would you see potentially an indictment against David than a month later indictment against somebody else? Or do you see typically an indictment against multiple defendants? You see it all sorts of different ways. I think more commonly you would see it together because it would be one grand jury going over a set of facts and a set of witnesses and you would do it together. But if you subsequently got information about other potential defendants, you could bring the grand jury back. You could convene a different grand jury. You could have a whole different proceedings. So you could have other prosecutions down the road. I would presume you would do them together if you could. Do you think that this reporting, if true, that he could be facing an

indictment, do you think it has anything to do with what we previously reported about regarding Steve Fisher, so this private investigator who is hired by the owner of that property that David was apparently staying at. Again, it was searched by authorities. It was located reportedly near where the Tesla was found. So Steve took to X and he said, although my words have been misquoted by some, what I actually said about certain items found at the Doheny address was that they were items you would expect to find on a farm rather than in a home in the Hollywood Hills. One of those items was a burn cage incinerator advertised to burn at 1,600 degrees. Human cremations are typically performed at approximately 1,400 degrees. An incinerator is not legal to use within city

limits and serves no legitimate purpose at a residential property in the Hollywood Hills. Some will argue that this item was intended as a prop for a video. If that were the case, it raises several obvious questions. Why would a 55-pound bird cage be delivered to a private residents instead of directly to a prop design or a production house? Why would it be ordered before departing on an extended world tour? And why was it never used in any video production? It is also important to note that there were additional items present that could be used in conjunction with the burn cage. To be very clear, this burn cage was not used. It was still new and in the box. However, given that Celeste Revis Hernandez's remains were ultimately found

in the Tesla trunk, the presence of an incinerator at the same residence associated with that vehicle necessarily raises questions about intent. The burn cage was not taken during the search warrant, and because it was not used, it appears it's not of importance to any possible criminal investigation, but we think it's important context, even if not criminal. The bird cage and other related items were delivered to the residence under a false name, although the deliveries were accepted at the property, attached as a photograph of the actual burn cage incinerator, as found at the residence, along with an image from Dr. Burns' advertising materials. for the product. And I will also say that Steve went on News Nation and said, we found a chainsaw,

no purpose for a chainsaw to be at the house. It still had the protective shield over the chain itself. There it is with a burn cage. You got to wonder what this plan was. Now again, this is Steve Fisher coming out and saying this. We don't know for sure what authorities found or what they consider to be relevant in this investigation. But I do have to wonder. I have to ask if any of that is related to the news we're talking about today, Rich. Well, it definitely could be. And those are going to raise fascinating evidentiary issues if this matter proceeds to an indictment and goes to trial. I mean, now you have circumstantial evidence to try to establish that the defendant intended to dismember and or incinerate a body, but they weren't actually used to dismember or incinerate a body. So now it becomes sort of tangential circumstantial evidence and would it even get admitted into trial?

can we establish clearly that it was delivered to this defendant, or somehow under his control, or somehow related? And I guess there's this possible story that they were just props for a video. Is there anything concrete to establish that? There are a whole mess of issues tied up with that evidence. But yeah, I think if there is investigative work that suggests that this individual was accumulating equipment that would help him get rid of a body, that is going to resonate with the investigators

and probably push them to want to get an indictment. Can you walk us through, you know, it's being reported that they might still be hearing witnesses until February, so an indictment might not be imminent if it is actually going to be coming down. Can you walk us through how it works? You know, if an indictment is handed down, what are the next steps? Would David, let's say he is indicted, does he surrender, is he arrested? What are the next steps?

What should we be on the lookout for? when this case or if this case progresses in that way. Yeah. Sometimes grand jury proceedings like this can linger a while. They don't start on a Monday and end on a Friday necessarily. They can have breaks and especially we have the holidays here and you have to schedule them according to the witnesses you want to bring in. So I very much buy the idea that this might go into February before there's a conclusion.

At the end of the grand jury proceeding, the prosecutors will seek an indictment. And if they get one, if the grand jury votes to indict, then they are able to indict and start a case against the defendant. He will be arrested. He would plead guilty or not guilty. There would be a proceeding in court to determine whether or not he would be held in custody while the proceedings were going on. There would be an opportunity for his attorneys to try to move to dismiss the charges that were brought against him for whatever legal basis they might have. there would be a period of criminal discovery and disclosure, and then, you know, the case would proceed on its way to trial potentially. And obviously, there's a possibility at any point in

that sequence that there could be a negotiated resolution, that there could be a plea bargain, that there could be a deal on the table, that the matter could be concluded without further formal proceedings or a trial. And I appreciate you laying all that out. I think That's a really good explanation about what we can expect. I guess before we wrap things up, and this is another big point, when will we have answers to the questions that we have? And maybe more importantly, when will the family have answers to the questions that they have? Because the ME's findings have been sealed based on the LAPD sought a court order. You do wonder if an indictment comes down, would it list out all the witnesses?

Would it list out all the evidence? Will the ME's report then be released? I mean, if an indictment should come down, how much information will we actually get? Well, you know this as well as anybody, Jesse, because you read a bunch of these indictments. Sometimes they're a little bit thin. I mean, sometimes they just lay out sort of the underlying facts of the crime as alleged, and they don't put it in the detail. In fact, I'm not sure I've seen a lot of them where you get a list of witnesses or a list of exhibits.

You don't get that kind of thing until you get closer to trial. You don't get to see the evidence until you're in the discovery process in the criminal proceeding. So you might get an indictment now. Is that an answer for his family or her family? Is it an answer for the public? I don't know. I assume because this is a high-profile matter, a celebrity matter. If there is an indictment, I assume there will be people who think it's an unfair indictment.

I assume there will be people who will side with the defendant. We see a lot of that these days. So I don't know if it will answer anybody's questions. To me, you don't get a final answer until there's a plea or a verdict at trial. Rich Schoenstein, thanks so much for taking the time. As always, appreciate it. My pleasure. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody.

Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can follow me on X or Instagram. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.