D4vd Hearing: Can the Defense Get Out of This?

[00:00:00] Anne Emerson: Hey everyone, I'm Anne Emerson and this is Criminally Obsessed. Okay, I have to be honest, the longer I watch what's happening at this gruesome preliminary hearing with the singer David, the more I'm asking myself, how does the defense get out of this? 22-year-old David Burke, a popular singer-songwriter, is charged with murder and the death of his underage girlfriend, Celeste Rivas Hernandez. Prosecutors allege that David bought body bags, chainsaws, and a blue inflatable pool to dismember Celeste's body. And it's not like the prosecution is easing into its case. Celeste's family attorney, Patrick Steinfeld, described some of the overwhelming evidence against David. There's a lot of gruesome testimony that was provided, [00:00:49] Speaker 2: as well as there was a disgusting images that we saw. It was rather stunning, the amount of money [00:00:58] Speaker 3: that he was bringing and his owning capacity. He had guarantees of a maximum guarantee of $6 million. [00:01:07] Anne Emerson: We're just days into the preliminary hearing and we're seeing and hearing about some of this evidence for the first time. And through all of it, as it's being flashed up in the courtroom, David's face is stone cold just staring at what was once a 14-year-old girl. And just feet away, Celeste's parents are in tears having to relive what prosecutors say was the worst day of their lives. And if you're like me, you're probably thinking, this case looks devastating. So what in the world is the defense doing? That's exactly why I wanted to bring in criminal defense attorney, Jack Rice. Because while the rest of us have been focused on this disgusting, horrific evidence, Jack has been watching the defense and he thinks they're already showing their hand. And if he's right, their strategy could have a huge impact on [00:02:01] Jack Rice: how this case plays out. His problem is you can't, you're going to have a very difficult time denying the shovel, that blow up pool, the body bags, the chainsaw, the DNA, the car, all of those things. Which tells me they're going to come out with the theory, this approach that he actually dismembered [00:02:26] Anne Emerson: her, but he did not murder her. I mean, how? Oh my gosh, I have so many questions. But first, please be sure to like, subscribe and turn on your notifications. I'm going to be updating this case in all the cases that you're obsessed with. Now, let's get into it. Have you been able to follow a little bit what's going on with David Anthony Burke? I mean, this has been unbelievable, what we're seeing play out in the LA courts. Yeah, no question about it. In fact, [00:02:57] Jack Rice: I remember when he was arraigned back in April and everybody was watching this. I mean, he sort of came out of nowhere in that sense, although he was famous in terms of who he was. But when this all of a sudden dropped, when he was arraigned back then, it's like, my goodness. And so everybody has been watching this. [00:03:15] Anne Emerson: Tell me what we're in the middle of right now. What is this preliminary hearing all about for David? [00:03:20] Jack Rice: What a preliminary hearing is really about is to determine something called probable cause. Essentially, are these the right charges? And do we have the right guy? Now, the standard isn't the the same for the jury trial itself. What it really is, is a little more likely true than not. We'll think 51%. And so the notion of if we look at all of the evidence collectively, do we have the right guy or think we have the right guy? A little more true than not. So the standard isn't anywhere near as high as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And yet there still is a real requirement, a burden that the state must prove to establish that David is the right guy. In California, it has to be live testimony. And so there's actually a real benefit from the perspective of the defense attorney, because you get to start weighing the evidence they have. You get to cross examine them in the midst of it as well. [00:04:19] Anne Emerson: Yeah. So that he could have done it. Not that he did do it because that's going to be up to a jury, right? But he could have done it. I mean, is there any chance that the prosecution wouldn't be able to meet [00:04:29] Jack Rice: that in a case like this? Not this case. I mean, when you look at the evidence that has been accumulated over the last, I don't know, 15, 15, 16 months, there's an enormous amount. And I think what we've seen is the prosecutor's office really working very, very hard to build all of it together. Because part of the problem that they have is that the body that they found was so deteriorated that there's limitations when it comes to that. So you would basically have to build everything else around it, except for that piece and say, who else, but David Burke could have murdered Celeste Rivas Hernandez. [00:05:17] Anne Emerson: Yeah. And I mean, Jack, the amount of evidence we're talking about is terabytes. And I mean, the digital evidence that they were talking about was insane. The amount of stuff that they were just trying to get through. What are your initial thoughts on this case? Where do you think this is going? [00:05:36] Jack Rice: When we look at what they have, and I'm speaking with the prosecution, what they really have in this case is they have a receipt that basically has David getting an Uber for Celeste to come to his house on the 23rd of April of 2025. That's the last time anybody saw her alive. Now we move forward to September, and they find her dismembered body in his car. But it's not just a dismembered body in his car. It's way more than that. It's how she was dismembered. It was the body bags that were found in the car that he in fact ordered with an alias, but he himself ordered not long after April 23rd. There's DNA, there's blood from Celeste in his garage. So we can place it in that space. We can talk about all of the conversations that went back and forth between them. And essentially, we even have, and this is what the state is arguing, we have motive. Now, what's interesting about motive to me is that, and this is missed by a lot of people sometimes, is that motive, generally speaking, it's not an element of the crime. It's not. You don't have to prove why somebody did it. You have to prove that they did it, right? You have to prove what drove them. Yes, but the motive is frequently one of those things that juries, juries love to see it because they want to make sense. They want to look at this and say, why would anybody do something like this? And I can say this as somebody who has tried a lot of cases, as a prosecutor, even more cases, a lot more cases as a defense attorney, including murder cases. So [00:07:20] Anne Emerson: I've been in this space, both sides. Jack, I mean, do you, we've just, we've just started to see what the prosecution's going to come forth, you know, what, what they're bringing to the table right now. And they're coming with a baseball bat. I feel like they're coming with like a Mack truck running through the middle of this hearing. It was so much more brutal than we could have ever imagined. [00:07:46] Jack Rice: This first day of the preliminary hearing was brutal because what they brought forth were photographs and what these photographs were, were a series of things. I mean, a lot more than just that, but that piece to start with just the brutality of what we're talking about here. This 14 year old girl had both her arms and legs cut off. She also had, and this is actually 14. And what makes it even more brutal, but also important because it's a piece of the evidence is that she also had her ring finger and pinky removed. And why that matters or potentially matters, according to the prosecutor, is that she actually had his name tattooed on her ring finger. And by the way, David had her name, Celeste tattooed in red on his ring finger. In addition, what we have was on his right hand, his pointer finger had sh, right? S-H-H-H. And she had the same tattoo on that finger. The purpose is to connect these two and then to show the brutality that came based upon everything else [00:09:05] Anne Emerson: that we have. Reporters were talking about how they had, they were physically felt ill when they saw these photos come up. You know, you hear that, that the parents of this poor little 14 year old girl, Celeste are crying, listening to this. And then you've got the dichotomy of David Anthony Burke sitting there staring at the pictures, not flinching, not doing very much of anything, just looking at these pictures, not really emoting, you know, or looking away or being upset at all to the point where the attorney's sort of, oh, I put my, my hand on his back and make sure he's doing okay. Like, at least I show a little bit of empathy here. I mean, this, this courtroom scene in itself just sounds so bad. [00:09:54] Jack Rice: Yeah, I've been doing this for almost 30 years. And I think about what I've seen in courtrooms and what I've seen as I look at autopsy photos that are, could sometimes spread across desks in my offices. And you look at the brutality of something like this and it's really hard to explain. It really is. I can tell you one hint though, and I see this coming is you think about how David Burke is reacting during this hearing. One of the things that happens in cases like these, and frankly, I would argue every criminal case is that anybody who was charged with a crime and you walk in front of a jury, you need to know that everybody in the room is watching you. Now, is that evidence? Well, technically it shouldn't be, but it is because every single jury is going to look at this person's face and say, if I were an innocent person, would I be reacting like this? And that's the truth. Should he be acting like this? Probably not. I would say not. When you look at how his behavior has been during this first day of the preliminary hearing, this did not feel normal. This did not feel like this is somebody who I was in love with, somebody I had a relationship with. I realize this gets confusing because we're talking about a child. He was 18 when they met. She was 13 when they met back in 2023 or even before that. [00:11:16] Anne Emerson: But as a defense attorney, what is your case? What are you doing? How are you defending this? Are you just saying, let's see if we can't get through this wave and we'll see where we're at? [00:11:29] Jack Rice: I think I have an idea on where the defense is going in this case. They made a reference earlier on about this, and this goes back to arraignment and then the arraignment since then. And what they were talking about was essentially, he didn't kill her. Now, the only logical way in my mind, if you have to deal with this evidence is this, and this is how I'm thinking about this as a defense attorney, is that his problem is you can't, you're going to have a very difficult time denying the shovel, that blow up pool, the body bags, the chainsaw, the DNA, the car, all of those things, which tells me they're going to come out with the theory, this approach that he actually dismembered her. He actually cut her to pieces. And I'll say it that way because that's how brutal this is. Right. But he did not murder her. It was somebody else who did that. And he panicked and he went somewhere else. And what he did was he did the dismemberment and he hid her. Because the reason is, is if you look at the evidence that the state is presenting here, what they're really presenting is not just that she showed up at the house. That's part of it. There's no murder there. What you get is the dismemberment and the body being moved. And that is all tied around David Burke. But is the murder? Where is the evidence of the murder that he committed? And so that's where the motive piece comes in, where they start talking about what it was that Celeste was saying. And we haven't even talked about that, which is really about her saying, I want to be exclusive with you. Right. And I don't want you with all of these other girls. I want you just with me. And in fact, if you don't, what I'm going to do is I'm going public. I'm going to go public. I'm a 14 year old girl and you've essentially been raping me. So as a result of that, I will destroy whatever career you think you have. That's the motive that the state's going to wrap around him and try not to let go. The defense is going to have to come back and say, you know what, show me the proof of the murder piece. [00:13:47] Anne Emerson: So as far as the digital evidence, I mean, you're talking about these text messages are going to play a key role. Um, the, the, the digital, uh, footprint that he, that, that David Anthony Burke left behind. Talk to me about how this digital evidence goes into play now. [00:14:07] Jack Rice: Think about this. This is a worldwide tour is romantic homicide tour. So between 2023, 2025, he's made somewhere between 10 and $12 million already. And so, and he's just getting started. The potential for what he could do is dramatic. You start looking at this again, this digital footprint and this digital fingerprint. We think about what that means. It's not just the text messages. It's everywhere. Those phones have been, you can now turn around and you can start cross-referencing those. So you can figure out locations. You can take a look at that, uh, that Tesla that her body was found in all of the searches that were ever done. Remember that creates a memory of its own. [00:14:54] Anne Emerson: What was ever looked at. Let's talk about the footage that the Tesla shoots itself. [00:15:00] Jack Rice: I mean, Oh my God. It is a perfect example. And, and, you know, most people don't realize just how much information is actually out there. And especially when it comes to a car. And when you talk about a Tesla in particular, the advanced technology of what it does, it'll show you where, where it's driven, but it will also show you everything about where it is in terms of locations. It'll tell you when doors open up, when doors close, whether you're, whether you're in reverse, whether you're driving forward, it'll give you speed. It'll give you all sorts of things. And so they can go into essentially what we would call a black box and they can take that black box apart, but it also attaches to every phone, you know, just like you, when you step into your car and your, your phone automatically attaches to that car. Guess what? Now, all of a sudden you get that much more information and anybody else who might be connected to that. So you start realizing that you can build a castle out of all of these other pieces of your life. And that's exactly what has been happening with this department, with the LAPD has been doing because this is complex. There is a lot that's going on and they're trying to build this in such a way that it's airtight to make sure that David Burt can't slip through. We're hearing that, that not only [00:16:27] Anne Emerson: did Burke use an alias for the orders according to the prosecution, but he used his own cards. [00:16:33] Jack Rice: Not only used his own card, he had the chainsaws and the body bags and the, and the inflatable pool delivered to his own home. And the burn cage. And the, and the burn cage. Behind the piano. [00:16:44] Anne Emerson: To his own home. Once again, I just don't think we can, you know, really downplay how much evidence there is in this case that, that points to your, to your exact, uh, prediction. Why would you even deny it? Why would you even deny that this was, that you weren't trying to cover up a murder? [00:17:07] Jack Rice: There is another piece to this too, right? I mean, right now, the DA has to make a decision. Are they going to go for the death penalty or not? And, and one of the aspects of this case that is true is, will the prosecution negotiate in any sense of the word? Now, what you could say is, you could say, well, with all of this evidence, why would they negotiate? And my response as a defense attorney, that it would be, well, then why would I plead guilty? Why would I plead guilty to anything? If what you're saying is the worst that's going to happen to me is that I'm going to be found guilty of something. And then I'm going to serve the amount of time that, that, that, uh, you've offered me. I might as well go to trial and see if, if a prosecution goes sideways and they do. Because remember, this is as good as the prosecution's evidence ever gets, because you never know what somebody is going to say once they get in on the stand, you never know exactly what's going to happen until it actually happens. And so that's part of the question from the pro, from the defense. My guess is it's going to go a couple of directions. They may fight this fight, but what they're trying to do is certainly avoid the death penalty on the one side, but what they might also be doing is they might be fighting for something slightly better than that. And that would be life with, with the possibility of parole. [00:18:30] Anne Emerson: Well, and, and what this special circumstances here in the murder charges include lying in wait. In other words, he lured her to, uh, his allegedly to his Hollywood home in order to commit this murder. And that there was financial gain, which I think is the trickiest part, uh, of this as well, to make it a death penalty eligible, um, case. Jack, I mean, deep down, do you think this case [00:18:59] Jack Rice: will go to trial? If they take the death penalty off the table and it's just a life without the possibility of parole. If that's all we're sitting with and it's not better than that, I would try this case. Okay. Why wouldn't I? What's the downside for me? If the only down, if the only thing that can happen is me going in and, and losing horribly as a defense attorney and getting the sentence that I would have received if I had pled in the end, that's part of the process is to say what you really want here from the perspective of the DA's office. But I would argue for the families is, does the family really want this? Of course they don't. What they want is certainty. And there's nothing that's going to fix this. Does justice bring their daughter back? No, it does not. Will you ever be whole as a result, as a parent, before you and I started, we were talking about our kids, right? Well, guess what? As we love our kids, this family loves this child and will always love this child and they will be broken forever because of this child. And so the question is, is what does that family want? I would argue that the DA's office needs to talk to them because they need to play a role in this. They have to play a role in this. And one of the benefits of a resolution of some kind of resolution is that you waive the ability to, to take this as the courts of appeals, to appeal this process. And when you're done, you're done. That's one of the benefits the defense is doing is they're trying to say life without, with the possibility of parole. I bet you they would take that today. Celeste is, is, is the victim here and clearly, but you realize that the, the victimization here is so much bigger than that. You think about the family members, you think about Celeste's father. Oh my God. Who hears about, about a body found in David's car and has a bad feeling that this is his daughter who is missing. Right? So this is almost four months after she goes missing and he calls the police and he's the one who says, yes, I can get you dental records because her body has decomposed so severely that they can barely even identify. They can identify by facial features. I want to ask you if, if the judge does find [00:21:27] Anne Emerson: probable cause on all these counts, what actually changes for Burke and his defense strategy the day [00:21:32] Jack Rice: after that ruling? Yeah. You know, it's, it's one of those things I, I, I've sat in these spaces with my client and I've sat in, in a little jail cells with them as we're waiting to hear how this is going to play out. And I think realistically what the defense has done is they've tried to bring down expectations of David Burke because they knew that probable cause was going to be found. They know the evidence that that's against them. They do. And as a result, I think they need to tell David and they, I hope they did tell David that, you know what, please understand this is coming. They are going to find probable cause here, which means what we have to do is start ramping up for trial. We need to start thinking about what kind of a defense we're putting on because they are not going to be showing their hand at this point because this is really all about the state meeting their burden and bringing those, bringing those standards as low as you can for Burke on the short term saying the fight isn't really about this fight. We get to take advantage and benefit from all of the information that comes out so we can use it. But what we're really doing now is, is we're gunning for what happens when we ultimately end up in trial in front of a group of 12. Drop a comment below. I want to hear what you [00:22:52] Anne Emerson: think about what Jack Rice just told us. Do you think this could be the way the defense is going to play this? Look forward to your thoughts and be sure to like, subscribe, and turn on your notifications. I'll be updating this case and all of the cases that you are obsessed with. And so am I.