Law&Crime Sidebar - Feds Could Make D4vd's Murder Case Even Worse

Episode Date: May 6, 2026

Singer David Anthony Burke, known as D4vd, is facing first-degree murder, continuous sexual abuse of a child, and mutilation of human remains charges in California state court. Prosecutors allege he killed and dismembered 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez at a rental home. But as evidence surfaces, including alleged child sexual abuse material on his devices, are the feds getting involved? Former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi joins Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber to break down the federal statutes that could apply. PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Grow your own audience today – go to https://www.opus.pro/sidebar for 1 week free plus 50% off the first 3 months of Opus Pro. HOST: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.

Could singer David now be hit with federal charges? I wonder because of the alleged child sexual abuse material apparently found on his devices, this alleged illegal sexual relationship over state lines, are the feds getting involved? Are they already? Because if that is the case, David's legal predicament would change drastically. I am bringing on a former federal prosecutor to discuss. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime.

I'm Jesse Weber. So before we go any further, if you're into content creation, if you're putting things out on social media, have you ever wondered how we're able to share all of these clips from all of these stories so quickly? Here's a secret. We use something called OpusClip. This is an all-in-one AI editor that makes it so easy to cut, create, and upload videos across any platform. Through AI, Opus Clip generates B-roll, it reframes footage, and it even cleans up audio. It is so easy.

Just visit opus.pro slash sidebar. You sign up, you upload, and in minutes, you have perfectly edited clips ready to go. for TikTok, shorts, reels, opus clip is your one-stop shop. And having a tool like Opus clip means that our producers can get you viral courtroom updates instantly. This is the most powerful tool there is to share ideas and edit like a pro. So go to Opus.combeau slash sidebar to get a free week and then 50% off. Could David face federal charges? Now remember, he's currently charged with California state crimes.

21-year-old David Anthony Burke has been charged with first-degree murder, continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 and a lawful mutilation of human remains, all in connection with the death of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, who was found dead, mutilated in a Tesla at a Hollywood toad yard out in Los Angeles and that this car was apparently registered to David. And the criminal complaint also includes special circumstance allegations of murder of a witness, murder for financial gain, lying in wait. There was a special allegation that Burke allegedly used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a sharp

instrument to commit the crime. And the reason that's all important is because if he's convicted, he could get a higher penalty. He could get life in prison without the possibility of parole. He can even get the death penalty, even though there's a moratorium on executions out in California. But essentially, the argument is that he allegedly killed Celeste on April 23rd, 2025 after she threatened to expose him.

Prosecutors alleged he couldn't let anyone know about the. their alleged illegal sexual relationship that this would ruin his career. So they claim he lured her to his property, killed her shortly after she arrived, stabbed her to death, and then dismembered her body. He has entered a not guilty plea. It's important to always remember that he is innocent until proven guilty. But with all that said, now I am wondering about federal charges. Could federal charges be on the horizon?

Because if that is the case, that will change everything. For that, I want to bring in Gene Rossi, former federal prosecutor, criminal defense, attorney to talk about this. Gene, thank you so much for taking the time. Always good to see you. I have to just start with the big one. This is the one. When this came out, this was my first thought. And I haven't had an opportunity to really dissected as much as I wanted to because from the evidence list included in a filing ahead of the preliminary hearing, which is set for the end of the month. And that's where prosecutors will present what they say is sufficient evidence for this case to move forward. There's this part. It says, quote, the description of photographs

depicting the victim naked as well as while she was engaged with defendant in sexual activity when she was 13. As this evidence constitutes child sexual abuse material, CSAM, the photographs themselves will not be presented. While all possible charges that could be proven were not filed, the CSAM is proof of their ongoing sexual relationship while the victim was 13 and 14 years old. And Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Beth Silverman said in court in a recent hearing that the search warrants in this case turned up, quote, a significant amount of child pornography on Burke's devices. Now, I go to you, Gene. If that is the case, is that automatically federal charges? It's not automatically, but it sure points towards federal

involvement. And there are two federal charges that could occur here. And I'll get to a third in a moment. But I want to go to the child pornography. They have seized eight terabytes of information from his iCloud account. They've only reviewed one terabyte. So they got seven more terabytes to go where they could even enhance the murder charge and also child pornography. But go to feds. The U.S. attorney or the Department of Justice could charge him theoretically with possession of child porn and or production of child porn. Possession is a five-year minimum. The production is, I think, a 15-year minimum. I could be wrong on that, but I think it's 10 to 15 years, but it's a minimum. The other charge that could possibly occur here is federally, is kidnapping.

It appears that she may have been lured to his apartment across state lines and that for the purpose of kidnapping her, not letting her go. And then he abused them. and he killed her. Kidnapping resulting in death is at federal level. Would it still be federal? Would it still be federal if she came from Lake Elsinore, California to the Hollywood Hills in California? No, but we don't know if she went to another state and he was communicating with her. We don't know. We got eight terabytes of information. We have seven more terabytes to go. We don't know that. But on a child pornography stuff, that's definitely an interest of the federal law prosecutors. I can tell you that right now.

Let's explore that a little bit. I looked at some of the statutes and tell me what the elements are and how it might apply. So I saw 18 U.S.C. 2251 sexual exploitation of children, production of child pornography. 18 U.S.C. 2252, certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors, so possession, distribution, and receipt of child pornography. 2252A, certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography. And I looked under the DOJ's website. They basically say images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor,

someone under 18 years of age. Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital, or computer-generated images distinguishable from an actual minor and images created adapted or modified but appear to depict an identifiable actual minor. Federal jurisdiction is impacted if the child pornography offense occurred in interstate or foreign commerce. So this includes, for example, using the U.S. mails or common carriers to transport child pornography across state or international borders. Additionally, federal jurisdiction almost always applies when the internet is used to commit a child pornography violation. Even if the child pornography image itself did not travel across state or international

borders, federal law may be implicated if the material, such as the computer used to download the image or the CD-ROM used to store the image originated or previously traveled in interstate or foreign commerce. And then it goes, any violation of federal child pornography law is a serious crime. Convicted offenders face severe statutory penalties. For example, a first-time offender. Convicted of producing child pornography faces statutory minimum of 15 years to 30 years. maximum in prison. A first-time offender convicted of transporting child pornography faces, like you said, fines in a statutory minimum of five years to 20 years in prison. Convicted offenders may face harsher penalties if the offender has prior convictions. Okay, I guess I go back to you

when I'm laying that out. Is it just the fact you put it on your device and it connects to the I-Cloud? Is that sufficient? I mean, I think a lot of these statutes were built before our technology. And so it's not like the classic example, child pornography, you put in a mail, you send it to somebody, right? If it's on your phone and it's in the I-Cloud, is that enough? That could be enough. Because here's why, because the interstate nexus for child pornography cases, and actually any federal crime, the bar is very low in terms of affecting interstate commerce. If you use your iCloud, if you use a computer, if you use the mails, it's almost inevitable. You're going to invoke federal jurisdiction via the commerce affecting commerce.

So that doesn't bother me one bit in terms of the affecting interstate commerce. I did want to add this. The intent here would be circumstantial. You probably don't have any admissions from Mr. Burke. I'm going to call Mr. Burke. So really, just his possession would satisfy the elements. of either intentional, knowingly, and or willfully possessing this material or transporting or producing. It sounds like he took it up a notch and he was producing this child porn. He just wasn't receiving it.

He seemed to be obsessed with her. I would say this. One of the articles that I read said it's possible that he was starting his relationship, if you will, I use that loosely with Ms. Hernandez when she was age 12. So we got 12, 13. That's well below 14. course. So he's facing some charges at the state level that are pretty significant. But I want to go back to the feds. If there is any indication that she crossed state lines, that would invoke the kidnapping statute if he lured her across state lines, which is possible. I don't know. And they have this death resulting clause of the kidnapping statute. That is a death penalty eligible at the federal level. And I'll guarantee you this. If the LA U.S. Attorney's Office has evidence, of kidnapping resulting in death. You can guarantee they're going to charge it, and they probably

would seek the death penalty because from what I've read, this gets to a case I had in the Eastern District of Virginia, United States v. Ernesto Cole. He was a drug dealer. He killed about 35 people. One of the people whom he killed was in the Eastern District of Virginia. The victim was put in a car that was parked on Teddy Roosevelt Island during the 4th of July in 1991. And tourists and people saw flies and the odor from the car over three days was just overwhelming. They impounded the car and they found inside the victim that was the basis of the murder charge, their drug trafficking murder charge. This has similar qualities.

It seems like that she was left in the trunk of that call. for weeks while it was parked in front of his rental property in Hollywood, I think. Yeah, and that's what complicates it. But again, I don't think, I haven't seen anything that like the car was driven across state lines. It might have been transported within California, but I haven't seen it crossing state lines, which are actually talking about crossing state lines. It brings me to something else. I'm curious your perspective on another potential federal charge. Sex trafficking. What do I mean? So in the brief, it says numerous text messages between defendant and the victim evidencing their sexual relationship, pregnancy,

abortion, and use of Plan B emergency contraception. Messages through March 2025 proved defendant continued to manipulate the victim as she messaged, all we do is have sex and just hang out, man, I want more than that for myself. These messages were obtained from defendant's I-Cloud data. And by the way, apparently there was a prior investigation into their alleged relationship. And it said, despite being informed by law enforcement, the victim was only 13. continued to pursue her. After the victim returned home in February 2024, her parents took her cell phone away. Defendant drove to Lake Elsinore and paid a junior high school student in the victim's class $1,000 to give the victim a cell phone defendant purchased so they could

stay in contact. Throughout 2024, the victim spent a significant amount of time with defendant, including summer weekends at his home in the Hollywood Hills and traveling with him to Las Vegas, London and Texas to meet his family. Gene, whenever I hear about an alleged, illegal, sexual relationship with a minor, and this is going across state lines and international lines, is that sex trafficking? Yes. Go to the Ditty trial in the Southern District of New York. He had a RICO count. He had a man and count, and he had sex trafficking involving violence. I don't think you have RICO here, but you could have a man and. Manac is, I'm in Washington, D.C. I call a lady of the night in L.A., hey, I'll pay your airfare and hotel,

come here and we'll have physical relationship. That's a Manac violation. There's no threats. There's no violence. If you add violence, that's sex trafficking involving violence or the threat of violence. We could have that. Now, here's the thing. This is why I think kidnapping could be on the radar screen, in addition to Man Act or Sex Trafficking at the federal level. I'm sure she left the state of California. And there were communications between Mr. Burke and Ms. Hernandez that caused her to come back to L.A. and engage in a relationship with him when she was under 14, or even if she wasn't under 14. Sex trafficking doesn't have an age. Man Act doesn't have an age. So those are two federal charges that could apply.

Does he have to promise or something? Does he have to give her something of value? Does he have to give her money? Does he have to, is it paying for the trips? Because isn't that a key component of the sex trafficking case? I don't know if it's different if you're talking about minor. The jury instructions for the Mann Act and the sex trafficking is very broad. It could be entice.

Entice could be you're just the verbal persuasion. It could be a financial gain. It's very broad. how you entice somebody to cross state lines for either Man Act purposes or sex trafficking purposes. Okay. By the way, before I go into the next component of this and how this may work, I just want to go back to the potential CSAM, the child sexual abuse material. What's a defense? And look, this is the prosecution's narrative about what they found. It's the prosecution's description of what these potential images are.

Do you say, as a defense attorney, it's not that. These are very benign images. They're not what is being described. Or if he's in possession of it, it's on his devices. Case closed. The thing about child pornography, if I have a magazine on my desk right now, and it's child pornography, and I know it's on my desk, and it crossed state lines, I got it in the mail,

I'm guilty of possession of child pornography. That's all you need. It's really an easy charge to prove. The only defense would, while two, defenses. One, you didn't know you had possession. If you had possession, it was mistake. That would be one defense. The other defense is, you know, it's not really child porn. It's a photo of a young girl in a nice dress or in the playground. It's not child pornography. That would be the other defense. That second defense, the other defense, that doesn't go anywhere.

I'm sure what's on his eye cloud or anything short of the eye cloud is pretty graphic. and it's, I think Justice Stewart said, pornography, I know it when I see it. Same thing applies to child pornography. I know it when I see it. So it's not hard to prove that that's child pornography. I want to touch upon something else. So Beth Silverman, again, the assistant DA who's prosecuting this case, said that discovery materials in this case would include the results of a wiretap, okay, and also searches

of Burke's cell phone and ICloud accounts and that law enforcement executed 54 search warrants. Wiretap. Does that mean the feds are involved? Possibly, yes. Now, at the state level, they can get wiretaps. But at the federal level, wiretaps are very common. Well, they're common in this type of case. So it could be a federal wiretap.

It could be a state wiretap. It could be both. Here's the other thing I was interested in. There were grand jury subpoenas served on the parents of Mr. Burke in, in Texas, Houston, Texas. They were served. on the parents in April of 2025. And as you mentioned before, her alleged murder occurred around April 23 of 2025. And the motive would be one, she could possibly be pregnant and or worried.

He's worried that he's a target of an investigation. What I'd like to know is, were they just state grand jury subpoenas or had the feds gotten involved and also served grand jury subpoenas? on the parents. The reason I mentioned that is if the parents got grand jury's penis from the feds and they were doing something to conceal alter or impede the investigation, that's an obstruction of justice charge. Okay. That actually leads into something else. I thought about this. I don't know if there's anything here. There is a federal law on the books against tampering with or killing a witness as part of a federal proceeding, right? Now, as far as we know, there was no federal proceeding. However, if we go by the prosecution's narrative that she was allegedly going

to expose him about their relationship, and even though, again, there's been nothing to indicate there was a federal proceeding or a federal investigation, but if she said, I'm going to show everybody these pictures, or I'm going to the FBI, if there are like messages about that, could theoretically this be a case of allegedly tampering with, killing a witness at the federal level? I might be stretching this because I don't know all the situation, but I thought, about it. Well, at the federal level, you'd need an investigation. You'd need a pending proceeding. And I supervised indirectly a charge where a witness in a federal investigation was going to cooperate with the feds or had been cooperating. And she was brutally, brutally murdered by MS-13 members.

So that was a separate charge involving witness tampering. But it would be an aggravating factor for first-degree murder in especial circumstances, that she was a potential witness, and he took her life, allegedly, allegedly took her life. I will say this, though, unless the wiretaps have some admissions or inculpatory statements, Mr. Burke has an argument that there's no, I'm assuming there's no forensic DNA on the body. That would be bad, of course. But they got an argument, they have an argument. I don't say it's successful, that, you know, it's.

too attenuated. You can't place him at the scene of any crime. You can't, there's no admission that he took her life. If that's the case, then they have an argument. Well, I will, I'll counter that by saying go ahead. They through digital evidence, okay, this is their, this is what they're saying they have. I don't know. We'll have to see what that. But they claim through digital evidence and cell phone evidence and surveillance evidence, they can track her movements to this property. They can track purchases that he made to allegedly, you know, dispose of her body. They can track his movements to Santa Barbara. Also through, you know, messages that he allegedly sent. They've created a timeline of when this alleged murder happened. And there is some forensic material, too, that I think is of note. But I just want to take

a step back here. What would be the advantage of pursuing a federal case simultaneously with a state case? Is it that if there's a weakness in the state case, hey, you know, we can go the federal route. Does it complicated at all? Talk to me about that. Well, I mean, you know, advantage is the defendant's facing two wars, if you will, Eastern Front, Western Front. So that always puts a burden on the defense. And, you know, it's a lot easier to convict somebody when you have two battles going on. The negative is if you have two charges in two separate forums, state and federal,

you're going to have problems with production and disclosing of exculpatory evidence, other things that you have to disclose because you're going to have to have the state and Federals compare how much information they each have. And a judge is going to say, hey, state, you get everything you can from the feds and vice versa. That could complicate things. Usually what happens is the state defers to the feds, but I think the horses, you know, we had to conduct it every Saturday. The horse has left the gate, if you will, on the state charts. they've already started the process. Usually, at the beginning of an investigation, the state and feds decide who goes first or who's going to take over the case. So in other words, if there were

federal charges, it doesn't necessarily mean the federal case would go first. There's a possibility the state case could go first. That's exactly right. That's exactly right. Yep. Now, I don't recall any mention of the feds at all. What do I mean by that? In the press conference from L.A. authorities, the L.A. District Attorney's Office, law and enforcement, haven't heard anything about the feds. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not happening, right? I mean, could the LADA's office just not be saying anything? Are they, are the feds investigating behind the scenes? I don't know. You tell me. Yes, you think about it. You're Nate Hawkman and you're having a press conference. You're announcing these first degree murder charges

and other charges involving lewd acts and sexual exploitation. The last thing you want to do is have a press conference to say, okay, we've charged Gene Rossi, but the feds are doing something, too. You're directing the media to go to some other form to ask questions. You want to focus to be on your investigation, your investigation alone. So it doesn't surprise me that they were very reluctant intentionally to avoid mentioning that the feds may have an investigation. I would be shocked if the federal U.S. well, the U.S. Attorney's Office does not have an investigation or will be starting one. I would be shocked if they are not doing anything. And again, maybe someone in the comments could correct me, but I go back to that press conference. I don't

recall the LADA saying, you know, this was a joint operation between the LADA's office, LAPD, Riverside County Sheriff's Office, the FBI, because sometimes you see that, right? They'll be like we had a multi-agency effort. The FBI helped us with information. Sometimes the FBI is part of a state case, right? So the fact that they didn't mention that, you know, you tell me. Well, that they did not mention the feds at all, FBI, ATF, anybody else does not surprise me one bit. They want to have the focus on the LADA's office and their office alone. Not that they want to hog the media, but they want to focus on their case. If there was a joint investigation, they would have mentioned that.

But I want to stress, it does not mean the feds are just sitting on their hands and not looking at this at all. I guarantee you they are looking at it, whether they charge is another matter, but they are looking at it. Gene Rossi, my gosh, gave us a lot to think about. Thank you so much, sir. Always good to see you. First person we wanted to have to talk about this.

Thank you. Hey, thank you. 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 Podcasts, 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, X Instagram, my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next time, everybody.