Law&Crime Sidebar - Did D4vd Act Alone? Bombshell Claim in Murder Case!

Episode Date: September 14, 2026

Former viral hitmaker David Burke, professionally known as D4vd, is currently facing first-degree murder charges in Los Angeles for the death of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez. As he awaits trial, Celeste's parents have filed an explosive 20-page lawsuit targeting D4vd, his management, his mother, and his live-in security guard, alleging they facilitated the minor's isolation and exploitation. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber sat down with Rivas Hernandez family attorney Patrick Steinfeld to break down the groundbreaking civil suit and discuss whether additional suspects could face criminal exposure.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Go to http://opus.pro/SIDEBAR to get a week free then 50% off for the next 3 months!HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson, Heather Berzak & 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.

We got our hands on this bombshell 20-page lawsuit filed against singer David by the family of the teenage girl. He's accused of murdering. And I also spoke with the man behind the suit, her family's attorney, Patrick Steinfeld, to not only discuss this case, but also what may be happening with the criminal trial, including whether anyone else has been investigated. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime.

I'm Jesse Weber. By the way, if you're into content creation, if you're putting things out on social media, you might be wondering, how do we share all these clips on sidebar so quickly on these rapidly developing stories? Well, we use something that maybe a lot of people don't know about. It's called Opus Clips. So Opus Clip is an all-in-one AI editor that makes it so easy to cut, create, and upload videos across any platform. Opus Clip generates B-roll. It reframes footage, and it even cleans up audio through AI.

They find the best moments from your content. Visit opus.pro slash sidebar. You sign up, you upload in minutes you will have perfectly edited clips that your audience is absolutely going to love. Use opus clip as your source for TikTok, shorts, reels. This is the most powerful tool there is to edit like a professional. Go to opus.com slash sidebar to get a free week and then 50% off for the next three months. That's opus.combeau slash sidebar. Right now, one-time viral hitmaker, David, real name David Anthony Burke, is facing the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison or even the death penalty, as Los Angeles prosecutors accuse him of murdering 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez.

A judge had determined after a multi-day preliminary hearing that David would face trial on charges of first-degree murder with special circumstances, continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14, an unlawful mutilation of human remains. And during his arraignment earlier this month, this was a shocker. It wasn't that David re-entered a not guilty plea, no. It was that this time he wasn't backed by a high-powered defense team. Instead, during that hearing, we learned he swapped out his private attorneys for representation from the public defender's office. And remember, investigators allege that David met Celeste online when she was just 11, that he started allegedly having sex with her when she was just 13.

He was 18. Prosecutors believe that Celeste threatened to expose their relationship, ruin David's blossoming music career. and that is when he allegedly decided to kill her. It is those allegations that make up the special circumstances allegations, which is why you could potentially see the death penalty. Now, this attorney switch up in the question of whether or not David may now be indigent. It had a lot of people wondering what happened to the millions of dollars David had allegedly earned over the last few years.

This was as his online success morphed into a record deal. So much testimony in his preliminary hearing about how much money he was making or planned to make. Is he actually broke? The victim's family, Celeste's parents, they have themselves accused David of hiding money to protect him from future civil litigation. And I will tell you, the reason goes back to this topic right now, it seems that litigation has officially arrived. Now, we already gave you an overview of this lawsuit on a previous episode as the details started to come out through public reporting. But now we actually have a copy of the lawsuit. And more importantly, we got a chance to bring in Patrick Steinfeld, the attorney representing Celeste's family, who filed this lawsuit on their behalf.

So I'll give you a quick overview of the lawsuit, and then you're going to hear this interview with Patrick Steinfeld. Okay, this complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles by Mercedes Martinez and Jesus Revis Alvarado on behalf of Celeste. And the suit has multiple defendants here, which makes it so interesting. So it's David himself, companies that are associated with him. So David Entertainment, Headspace Publishing, Skull Rose Merchandise. You heard me talk with Patrick Steinfeld on a little bit about why they went after the companies or going after the companies. His managers, Josh Marshall, Robert Morgan Roth, Mogul Vision LLC, Mogul Vision Partners, David's apparent live-in security guard, Sheldon Jake's. Colleen Burke, this is David's mom.

Apparently, she was managing his money. And the list of causes of action, right? the claims what you're suing for in this lawsuit is even longer. You have wrongful death, survival action battery, fatal stabbing, survival action sexual battery, survival action childhood sexual assault, survival action assault, survival action false imprisonment. So that's about Celeste allegedly being confined in that residence against her will before she was allegedly killed, using forced arrest. Survival action, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, interference with right to control,

disposition of remains, survival action, human trafficking. We talked about that a lot on our last episode too. So those are all claims solely against David, okay? Then you have survival action, child sexual assault, negligence and breach of duty to protect. That's against the entity defendants. Survival action, negligence. That's against the security guard. David's mom, survival action aiding and abetting, and that's against the security guard.

So in essence, what the family, what Patrick Steinfeld is alleging here is that people close to David had to know or should have known what was allegedly going on here. And that Celeste was a young girl, that she was traveling with David, visiting his family in Texas, even living at his rental house at one point, and that they helped facilitate this, that they had a duty to protect her. Now, quick sidebar here on Sidebar. As you know, this is a big case. We follow a lot of big cases here on Sidebar,

but sometimes we're kind of limited in everything that we can show you on this program, which is why we started the case file section on the Long Crime Plus app. So we're basically opening up the evidence fault on all these big cases so you can inspect the raw body cam footage, the 911 calls, the crime scene photos,

the full trial tapes all firsthand. Plus, you get ad-free streaming of all your favorite law and crime and court TV shows. And right now, we've got a special offer. Use my promo code sidefall. You get your first three months of law and crime plus for just $2.99 a month. That is 50% off the regular monthly price. Hope you can check it out.

Here's what the complaint says. I'm going to read you two paragraphs to give you an idea of this. Quote, entity defendants and the management defendants through their agents, employees, and funds, and not merely through Burke's personal acts, provided or facilitated the residence, transportation, travel communication security and other logistics that enabled Burke to isolate the seat in from her family and to be alone with her. Mogul Vision, whose principal client was Burke, leased the Los Angeles

residence at which Burke resided and at which acts alleged herein occurred with a portion of the lease cost paid by one or more of entity defendants and approved by Colleen Burke. Mogul Vision arranged the hiring of defendant Jake's as a live-in security guard. Robert Morgan Roth managed Burke's day-to-day affairs, processed the enterprises bills, and resided at the 1368 Tahini Place residence. That's where prosecutors claim this murder took place, alleged murder. And Colleen Burke is a member of David Entertainment LLC, and Burke's personal finance director, approved and paid the enterprises bills, including the residence lease, was a signatory on Burke's accounts and controlled the flow of the enterprise's funds. The entity defendants and the individual defendants,

through their agents and employees knew or should have known of Burke's dangerous propensities toward and sexual exploitation of the sedent, a minor, and fail to take reasonable steps to protect her, to supervise Burke or to prevent the continued abuse. Burke's knowledge of his own conduct and propensities as owner and director of the entity defendants is imputed to those entities. The entity defendants are not excused from their duty to protect a sedent merely because Burke own them. And we've talked about potential liability in our previous episode, but you're going to hear what Patrick Steinfeld has to say, too.

But according to the Los Angeles Times, Mogulvision, Morgan Roth, they have denied knowing that David was in an alleged sexual relationship with Celeste. David is the only one to have been charged criminally in connection with Celeste's death. He is, of course, innocent unless proven guilty. But I want you to listen very carefully to my conversation with Patrick Steinfeld. Again, Celeste family attorney who filed this lawsuit. And I want you to listen to what he says about others allegedly involved in David's purported crimes. Patrick, thank you so much for coming on. I really, really appreciate it.

The only place I know where to start right now is I just want to know how the family is doing. You know, particularly at this time, it's the one-year mark. It would have been her 16th birthday, Celeste 16th birthday. How is the family doing? They're doing as well as can be expected under this circumstances. The last few days have been really rough for the family, but they've got the support and love from their family members and close friends and colleagues. And so they're doing the best they can, but obviously the one-year anniversary as well as what would have been Celeste's 16. 16th birthday were very difficult for the family.

Before we even get into the law and what's happening here, you know, the other day when it was announced about this lawsuit, and there was a statement that I believe was put out by your office, there was an accompanying photo. And we saw Celeste in a photo that we hadn't seen before. And one of the things that I've been trying to understand since we've been covering this in September of last years, I just want to know a little bit more about her. I want to understand. And I think sometimes that gets lost.

It gets lost in a criminal case. It gets lost in a civil case. You talk so much about the defender defense. From your experience with the family, what do they say about Celeste? Who was Celeste? What was she like? She was a beautiful, very intelligent young girl. She was fun and full of life, very charismatic.

She was the type of girl that when she walked into a room, you know, she was a girl. She just walked in with joy. And she filled the home with laughter. And she was kind of the center, kind of the rock of the family. Because her parents are hardworking people. Her mom was working two jobs during all of this time. And her father, Jesus, works long hours with a long commute. And so they'd spend Friday evenings together watching movies and Celeste loved to dance and, you know, tell jokes and listen to music like any other young teenage girl.

But she was like the foundation of the family. And so the family obviously misses that and they'll never have that again. That's the sense that I've been getting, as I understand and try to learn more about Celeste. Before we even get into this, I just want, if you can extend, you know, our thoughts, our well-wishes to Celeste family as this progresses and as the story maintains in the nunes, I know it can't be easy for them. Particularly, I have to imagine, during that preliminary hearing, how difficult was that for them to go through that? I think that they grossly underestimated how difficult that was going to be. And I encouraged them as well as Beth Silverman, who was prosecuting the criminal charges. We both encouraged the family to step out in certain times, but they were determined to show their support and love for Celeste, as well as their support for the prosecutor's office and the LAPD investigators who worked extremely hard to put these charges together.

So it was important for them to be there, to show their support and love. But it was, it was very painful for them. And my concern was that they were going to see an image that you can't unsee or they're going to hear something that you can't unhear. And unfortunately, they heard a lot of that. And so it was very painful for them. And I think it's, it's scarred. them in a way that they're going to live with for the rest of their life.

It's unthinkable. It is really unthinkable for them to be experiencing and hearing what happened to Celeste. It raises another question, though. How much coordination or communication has there been with the DA's office and the family, particularly about decisions that are going to be made? I mean, even the death penalty, potentially on the table. How much communication is there with the office and the family? I think the coordination and the involvement between the district attorney's office and us has been just right. It's, if there's something that's important that needs to be discussed, we discuss it. But as far as the, obviously, the day-to-day decisions, we're not involved with that.

But a lot of these discussions haven't taken place yet because it's not the right time. And one of those decisions is on the death penalty. So although the family supports the death penalty in this case, that's not something that we've discussed with the district attorney's office because at this point it's really not even an issue. However, when it becomes the right time, we will discuss it with the district attorney's office and let them know that the family supports the death penalty. but we've met with the district attorney. We've met with Beth Silverman several times, and so they have cooperated with us, and we've cooperated with them,

as well as the LAPD investigation. So I think that the communication between their office and my office has been just perfect. That's good to hear. And before we get into the civil suit, just one final point I had about this. It's, look, David is innocent and less proven. guilty. These are allegations. The prosecution has to prove their case. Having said that,

do you know if the family would be open to a deal where potentially the death penalty is not invoked or the death penalty was taken off the table and he were to plead guilty and potentially spend life in prison? Do you know if the family would be open to something like that? Well, that's not something that we've discussed at this point, Jesse. I don't think the time now is appropriate to discuss that. But that's... That is absolutely a discussion that we will have at the appropriate time. Okay, so let's talk about this suit. Let me ask you first the timing.

Did David changing his legal team going with the public defender, did that impact the timing of filing this lawsuit at all? No, that had absolutely nothing to do with it. The timing had been set several months ago, and it really had to do with it. the statute of limitations regarding the false imprisonment allegation, which is one year from the time of the false imprisonment. However, in our case, the parents obviously, they weren't aware of the false imprisonment when it took place. And so we started our statute limitations from the one year that they learned of the false imprisonment. And so that's what we were trying to do was get our

our complaint on file within one year from the time that the parents learned of the false imprisonment. So the otherwise, the wrongful death statute of limitations is two years, but it was because of the false imprisonment allegation that we wanted to get our complaint on file within one year. It's interesting because I think that's one of my legal analysts that said last week when we covered this lawsuit, too. He made the same point about the statute of limitations. The, um, was it also important to wait to hear what the prosecution presented in the preliminary hearing before you filed a lawsuit? Well, that was an absolute must. We couldn't have proceeded without the preliminary hearing

because, like, 99% of the evidence that was presented in the preliminary hearing, the family wasn't aware of. I mean, the family has very little knowledge of the acts that took place. And so we were waiting for the preliminary hearing to take place before filing our complaint. In fact, the basis of our allegations are derived from the preliminary hearing transcripts. So we had to wait until there's a preliminary hearing before we could proceed with a complaint. Oh, I mean, the first thing that I saw when I was reading the lawsuit is how much it mirrors in the prosecution's allegations. But I did notice something, and correct me if I'm wrong. I saw a response to David's criminal defense team.

And correct me if I'm wrong, because what I noticed during the preliminary hearing was the defense seeming to suggest reasonable doubt could be, you don't know exactly what happened in the house when she allegedly arrived, right? and they seem to be suggesting, did she do something to herself? I don't know if they're trying to mount a potential self-defense argument, but you can't say definitively what happened in the House. In this lawsuit, you responded to that. You said there's only one thing. When you look at the injuries, when you look at the forensic material,

there's only one thing that makes sense as to what happened to Celeste. Am I correct that this was a direct response to what the defense kind of insinuated or argued at the preliminary hearing? What really has to do more with the difference in the burden proof, in a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's a heavy burden. However, in a civil case, like we're bringing, the burden is like 51%. And so if you put it on a scale of zero to 100, we just have to prove that the evidence is, like, 51%. And so if you put it on scale of zero to 100, we just have to prove that the evidence is, more likely than not. So someone can have a 49% doubt, but if they believe the allegations at a 51% number, then that's sufficient to meet our burden of proof. So we're confident since we have a lower burden of proof than the prosecution has in a criminal case, we're

confident that we can meet our burden. But this is a way to counter that narrative that Celeste did something to herself or that she or that David was acting in self-defense. That's absolutely correct. Okay. And by the way, those arguments that were insinuated by the defense at the preliminary hearing, did you know they were going to go that route? What was your reaction to going that route? I did not know they were going that route, but obviously they have to go a route to create a defense. I was offended by that. But on the other hand, the defense, the defense, attorneys in criminal cases, you know, they have to work with what they've got.

They can't choose their clients. And so they have to work with the evidence they have. They have to create doubt wherever they can. And I think that that was the only potential defense that they could create is that Celeste may have done this to herself. But I was shocked that they were going there, but I think everyone was waiting to hear what their defense was going to be. And unfortunately, they're putting a blame on a 14-year-old child. And I don't know if the public defender's office is going to piggyback off of that and adopt the same kind of defense moving forward towards trial.

This lawsuit was profound in a number of ways, but one of the things that really stood out is that it's not just going out. after David. It's going after corporations, his mother, managers. Talk to me about what the motivation was, why you believe it's necessary to file a suit against these other named defendants. Well, the motivation is because we think that there's liability on their behalf. And so we're going to go after every person, every individual, every entity, where we think that we can establish liability. And as you know, in California, the general rule is that there is no duty to come to the aid of another person, except in special circumstances like a parent, child, teacher, student. But you could be a Olympic swimmer, and if you see a stranger in a public swimming pool,

drowning, you have absolutely no legal duty to come to that person's aid. However, if you undertake a duty to come to an individual's aid, then you have a duty to exercise reasonable care. And if you fail to exercise reasonable care and you make things worse or you increase the risk of injury or harm, then that constitutes an undertaking. And if you're a lot of undertaking, and if you're negligent, then there's liability for your negligent undertaking. And in this case, the management employees, which would be Mogul Vision and Mogul Vision partners, and that was controlled and operated by John Marshall, who hired Robert Morgan Roth. They hired Sheldon Jakes as a living security guard. And their undertaking consisted of leasing

and controlling the premises, where most of the acts of sexual abuse occurred and where the murder allegedly took place. And they hired, retained, controlled the premises, personnel as well as security. The security was hired to protect David Burke, but there were also additional acts that were involved. We believe that he assisted Burke in removing Celeste from the family home. He transported her, including transporting her with fake ID to clubs with David Anthony Burke. And Jakes also arranged and facilitated Burke's access and control over Celeste. By hiring Jakes, what the undertaking resulted in is that David Burke had private, isolated access to a 14-year-old child under the eyes of Sheldon Jakes and as an employee of the

management company that creates liability. And basically what Jake's did is he put Sleast in a position of potential harm and made things worse by allowing David Anthony Burke to be isolated with Celeste. Now, besides the potential leasing paperwork, with respect to this Mr. Jakes, or even these managers, or David's mother, Colleen, can you share with us what potential evidence or current evidence you may have or hope to have

to prove this, to prove this sense of liability? Well, what we're doing is we're going on a reasonable a reasonable inference. And so we don't have any documentation. A lot of this information we learned from the preliminary hearing. And so we are creating what we believe are reasonable inferences that we can prove. But we do know that Jakes was hired by David Anthony Burke's management team to protect David. That was testified to in the preliminary hearing.

And we do know that he transported David and Celeste, where she had fake ID. And we believe that Jakes is the one that transported her from her house on one occasion. And the fact that he's protecting David, the reasonable inference, is he's protecting David and allowing him to become isolated. and remain in private with Celeste without being disturbed at a time when she's 13 and 14 years old. There's a part in the lawsuit that makes the claim that Burke and others hid evidence. What do you mean about the others hiding evidence? Well, again, much of this complaint is based upon information and belief because we don't have the actual documents, the actual evidence at this time. And so we believe that Burke may not have done this on his own.

So we're making the allegation, and that protects that allegation if we do find that another individual assisted Burke in the alleged murder or the destroying of evidence or the mutilation. So we're leaving that allegation open in the event that we do find another. individual that was involved. But no one specifically, because I guess the question is, do you know if the DA, if the LAPD has investigated anyone else in connection with David's alleged crimes? I believe they have. The district attorney's office is not showing their cards. And the time and place to do that is is that trial. But I think that they've got witnesses that are going to support all the allegations that were made in their criminal complaint against David Anthony Berg. Do you mean potentially cooperating witnesses who were offered a deal in exchange for testimony?

It could be. Look, I asked D.A. Hockman about that too. And he was, you know, obviously tight-lipped, he couldn't share much. But, you know, he didn't, when I asked him, he didn't foreclose the possibility that that might be happening, too. So we'll see about that. Back to the suit, what are you hoping for in terms of damages? And do you think in terms of, you know, there's been a lot of questions about what is the

financial status of David right now? And I know there's been comments about that, too. What do you hope for in terms of damages? And do you think that it is the corporate entities that could hold the financial status? the funds for damages? I think that they could. I find it hard to believe that David Anthony Burke is indigent, and that basically means you're broke.

You have to understand that in California, when a criminal defendant files for a court-appointed attorney, this is self-reported information. They don't run this through some system to determine whether or not these facts are true. So you could be a millionaire and go in and say, like, I'm making $1,200 a month. And that is accepted. And I think the reason it's accepted is because most people that are hiring public defenders qualify for public defenders.

They are indigent. My concern is that if you've got access and control over corporations, well, that's an asset. And if you don't disclose that asset on a self-reported form, then you qualify for a public defender in California. And so my concern is that David Anthony Burke did not disclose all of his assets. But the corporations also have assets. And we are confident that we're going to be able to establish liability with these corporations. And so we are absolutely pursuing them for monetary compensation as to what the value of this case is. I mean, clearly it's millions.

Now, Patrick, before we wrap things up, I just wanted to ask you, were you surprised that David split ways with Blair Burke and Co? I was. I was shocked. I know there's been a lot of discussion why he. did it, and presumably, you know, his position is he's broke, I think it might be because he realized he did not have a defense, and he's going to cut his losses because he knows he's going to get convicted, and he's going to put his money into corporations, which his mother is still, at least as to two months ago, was still earning $75,000 a year from

D4VD Entertainment. I mean, it's still an ongoing business that's bringing in revenue. Patrick I allotted, I had one more question for you. My last question to you is, is the family receiving support? Are they receiving support from people in the community, maybe strangers during this process? Because unfortunately, one of the other things that I've seen during the course of this case is there's been a focus put on the family in a negative light, which is really unfortunate to see. I'm just curious, are they getting the proper support from people as they navigate what is, again, I'll use a word, a truly unthinkable situation for them. And my mind kept going back to them during the preliminary hearing. What was shown in that courtroom?

Are they getting support that they need? I'm glad you asked that, Jesse, because the one thing that they tell me all the time is they're so grateful. of the support and the love that they're receiving from the community in Lake Elsinore. And when I talk to them about putting together a press release, they always tell me, make sure you think that you thank people in Lake Elsonor for all of their support. So I'm glad that you brought that up because I've mentioned that, I think once or twice, But I need to, you know, confirm that more often. They are receiving support from the people of Lake Elsinore, and it's giving them the strength and courage to carry on during this extremely horribly difficult time.

And whichever way this criminal case shakes up, whichever way this civil case shakes up, I am thinking about them. I am wishing them the best. Thank you for coming on, explaining the suit, explaining how they're doing. And I think most importantly, just even explaining a little bit more about Celeste, who, as I say, sometimes the victim in a case gets lost as we talk about the law and the motions and the court cases and the defendant. So thank you, Patrick. Really, really appreciate you taking the time. Thank you, Jesse. 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 also check us out on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, ex-instagram, my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next time, everybody.