JUST IN: Judge Drops Hammer on D4vd, Orders Murder Trial

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Today I am here to announce that Judge Charlene Almedo held David Anthony Burke, who goes by the name David spelled D4VT, to answer for the horrific and barbaric killing of a 14-year-old at the time, Celeste Rivas Hernandez. [00:00:18] Jesse Weber: That's DA Nathan Hockman out of LA talking after the conclusion of David's preliminary hearing. We are going to tell you what the court decided regarding whether or not this accused child killer is going to go to trial. And we just got a really big glimpse into what this defense may be. And I will tell you right now, it is shocking. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law & Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. We just wrapped up David's preliminary hearing. So this was over the course of several days. This is where the court would decide if there is sufficient evidence for this case to move forward to trial. Remember, he faces murder, continuous sexual abuse of a minor, unlawful mutilation of human remains charges, all in connection to the death of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez. We know her dismembered, decomposed remains were found in a Tesla out in an LA tow yard back in September of 2025. A Tesla allegedly registered to David. And the purpose of this hearing over the last several days was to determine if there is sufficient probable cause, if there is enough evidence to support these charges to go forward to trial. Before I even tell you what the court decided, I'm going to play you my interview from earlier today with Julia Dang, our reporter who was in the courtroom, our eyes and ears since there are no cameras. But also, I want you to listen very carefully to what the defense did. They just gave a preview of what their defense may be. Self-defense. What am I talking about? You're going to see in a moment. So first, this is my interview with Julia Dang. And then on the opposite side, I'm going to tell you what the court decided. Okay. So I'm back here with NBC LA reporter Julia Dang, who's been in that courtroom. She was in here today. We are talking during this lunchtime break. There's still some more arguments that are happening at the time we're recording this. The judge hasn't made the decision about whether or not this is going to go to trial or not. I am made of questions regarding what happened this morning because I'm starting to see potential holes in the prosecution's case, which I want to get to. So, Julia, good to see you. Let me let me just start here. We had LAPD Detective Corey Farrell back on the stand talking about this plethora of text messages between David and Celeste, thousands of messages. This is something that we were waiting to see. Talked about it on Friday, the images, the text messages. But today, he talked about the conversation leading up to April 23rd when prosecutors claim David killed Celeste. Talk to me about what those conversations were. [00:03:02] Julia Dang: This was so fascinating to me, because opposing counsel here, the prosecution and the defense, you know, they're presenting the exact same digital evidence here. They're presenting the same text message conversation between David and Celeste. And based on what these different attorneys are essentially cherry picking from these conversations, we are getting a very different view of what happened between the two of them and what was said the night before Celeste was allegedly killed. Now, first we heard from Beth Silverman, deputy DA prosecuting this case, when she had this LAPD detective Corey Farrell on the stand, they presented select text messages from hundreds, thousands of messages between the two during these two or three nights. And they were meant to basically just establish time, location, the two of them arguing, the two of them coordinating when and where to meet up, the two of them deciding on a pickup location for the Uber, and then Celeste alerting David when she apparently got to his home just after 10 o'clock in the evening on April 23rd, 2025, and asking him to let her in. So, very basic facts there, just establishing the two of them were communicating, they were planning on meeting up, and Celeste said in her text message to David that she had arrived. Now, then on cross-examination, Blair Burke was questioning LAPD detective Corey Farrell, and she asked to show the court additional messages from that same conversation. That's where we started to get a little bit more color about the argument that has been referenced previously in the prosecution's charging documents. This is where we actually saw text messages from Celeste to David threatening him. Let me paraphrase for you some of this. In those messages that were shown to the court that Detective Farrell read to us, Celeste tells David that she's going to ruin his career. She tells him that she's going to tell her father lies about him. She tells him that she has contact information for his business associates. And for his mother, she tells him that she's going to call his mother, Colleen Burke, and tell her damaging information about David. Now, we previously had not seen these messages. We didn't really have a sense of exactly what was said in the argument between David and Celeste leading up to the night of April 23rd, when she allegedly died at his hands. So hearing this now and seeing all of this actually in print on the overhead monitor in the courtroom, it adds a little bit more color and life to this. [00:06:17] Jesse Weber: It's clear the reason this matters, it's not only potentially going to support the prosecution's narrative that he lured her there to kill her, but it goes to those special circumstances allegations, right? Lying in wait, killing for financial gain, killing a witness. All right, look, I know this is a 180, not taking away from what we're talking about in any way, but we have a great sponsor that helps support what we did here. And I have to tell you about it. So, look, running a business is tough enough. Why make it harder doing things manually, relying on dozens of apps that don't talk to each other, right? That's where our sponsor Odoo comes in. So Odoo is an all-in-one business management platform with a full suite of integrated apps that seamlessly connect all your operations, from sales and accounting to manufacturing, even shipping. Odoo can automatically generate professional, sleek-looking sales orders, invoices, and vendor bills, and it can automatically assign sales teams, send email updates through each sales stage, and even use AI to pull reports that help with your decision making. For manufacturing, their apps can sync inventory with real-time production and purchase updates, so you never run out of stock. And when it comes time for accounting, that's also fully automated. Odoo can create invoices, track expenses, and even summarize data with AI to save you hundreds of hours. You know what the best part is? You can choose your apps and even build custom workflows so it's all fully tailored to your business's needs. Take your business to the next level by consulting with an Odoo expert today for free at odoo.com/sidebar. I do have a question about this, though. When she claimed in these messages, or allegedly claimed in these messages that she was going to ruin his career, was it directly about their relationship? Did she say, "I'm going to tell everybody that you've been with a minor. I'm going to tell everybody about our sexual relationship." Was it about that? Because that's what I thought, based on the prosecution's arguments and their filing before this preliminary hearing, that that's what she specifically threatened. "It'd be a threat." [00:08:12] Julia Dang: There was a lot, Jesse, that was said in these text messages, and there was a lot that really was not spelled out. Keep in mind, too, a lot of this was typed out in Gen Z shorthand, in text message format, and it's little blips of back and forth. But let me tell you what these messages did not explicitly state. And this is what the defense brought up during their closing statements just now. Celeste did not, at any point during this back and forth, based on what we've seen in the courtroom today, explicitly threaten to disclose anything criminal about David. She did not spell that out. But what she's insinuating, what she's alluding to, right, the evidence that she's gathered, the material that she has, that she's threatening to leak? Absolutely. I mean, that is child sexual abuse material. She references that. She talks about reaching out not only to David's mother, but people on his management team. So that speaks to two of the special circumstances in this case that make the first-degree murder charge eligible for the death penalty here in California. And that's, of course, murder for financial gain. There was some back and forth just now about whether preventing financial loss constitutes financial gain. The prosecution is alleging that it does, in fact, count. And there are several cases here in California that set a legal precedent for that. This also speaks to another special circumstance under that first-degree murder charge, and that is murder of a witness, a witness to a criminal investigation. And the prosecution made it very clear just now in their closing statements that there did not need to be an ongoing or pending criminal investigation for that special circumstance to be applied. But here's where there might be an issue, though. Lying in wait. It seems to me, based on the text message conversations we were just parsing through in the courtroom, that Celeste was actually the one who demanded she and David have this meeting on the evening of April 23rd. She was the one who pushed him to have an in-person conversation. They were fighting about whether he was dating somebody else. She became very upset after seeing social media posts featuring the two of them. And it sounds like that was what triggered this argument. So she demands to see him. He tells her no. He's getting ready for a trip to Singapore. He says his parents are there visiting. He doesn't have time. She demands to see him. And finally, he gives in. So we previously did not know that about this argument. We thought that he arranged it. [00:11:13] Jesse Weber: Well, he did get her the Uber, right? So it's interesting. I was listening to what the prosecution was arguing. They said lying in wait doesn't mean a surprise attack. But they're saying he's the one who got her the Uber, got her to go to the house, right? And we still don't know what actually happened in that house, because I have to tell you, when we're talking about potential now holdings, the prosecution's case, didn't we learn a thing or two about potential surveillance footage and the Uber driver that may not be so helpful to the prosecution's case? Absolutely. [00:11:47] Julia Dang: I was wondering last week, as the prosecution was calling their witnesses for this preliminary hearing, are we going to hear from that Uber driver at any point? You know, we've heard about that piece of the investigation for months now that an Uber picked up Celeste in Lake Elsinore, where her family lives, and then dropped her off at David's home just about 80 miles away in the Hollywood Hills. We haven't heard from this Uber driver yet. Well, that came up today in court. Apparently, LAPD did interview that Uber driver, and he denies having any recollection of that trip. He cannot definitively confirm that he dropped her off at that time, just after 10 p.m. that night, and he does not remember picking her up or driving her there. That is absolutely a hole in what the prosecution has been alleging for months now. [00:12:44] Jesse Weber: And no surveillance footage of her showing up or him being at the house, which if I'm reading it correctly, again, seems to be problematic, which I know I'm jumping around a little bit because I do want to get a little bit back into what the prosecution was arguing with Detective Farrell. That's something else that really stuck out to me. They are mounting, as far as I can see, and I think the court referenced it, a potential self-defense argument. I mean, when I'm reading these messages, there was an aspect to it, and correct me if I'm wrong, did Celeste physically, or are they trying to suggest Celeste physically threaten David, and that perhaps when she got to his house, he acted in self-defense? Am I looking at this completely wrong? [00:13:32] Julia Dang: You're not. We've talked about a couple different defenses that attorneys have been, I think, either laying the foundation for or exploring as a potential option if or when this does go to trial. And I think this self-defense argument may be the one they have the strongest foundation for right now. As to the point you're making about physical assaults from Celeste, that was actually stricken from the court record this morning. The judge explained she is the victim here. She is not being charged with assaults. So until this goes to trial and the defense is presenting a self-defense argument, that's simply irrelevant. But that did come up, and it sounds like there may be evidence relating to that that we could hear at a later date. But to your point, too, Jussie, about that surveillance footage or lack thereof, absolutely. I mean, there is irrefutable hard evidence for so many other things, right? Phone records, Tesla records, text messages that spell out what people were saying and doing at specific times. There is no surveillance footage actually showing David or Celeste going into or coming out of the Doheny Place home where he was staying at the time. And the LAPD detective, Corey Farrell, the final witness for the prosecution during this preliminary hearing, he spoke to that today. And he laid out what I thought was a very reasonable explanation. He says by the time they tried to access that security system to search for that video, it had been so long, it had been months, and the system simply overwrote itself. It wasn't stored there anymore. Now, we don't know if somebody may have gone back and deleted that. We don't know if the cameras may have been turned off during that time. All we know is there is no video. So what the prosecution has been alleging this whole time that David stood by and watched the victim bleed out. Well, there's no video documenting that. So we have to wonder, Jesse, if they're going to call another witness to the stand during the trial who can say that they saw that happen. [00:15:53] Jesse Weber: Well, I think what I was hearing today from the prosecution is they are assuming that happened because the the argument would be there was no outgoing calls to emergency services, although it seems to be complicated a little bit because the defense was saying your medical examiner. Right. The couldn't hear the medical examiner said that we don't know how long it took for Celeste to succumb to her injuries. Right. So this idea that you were that you claim our client was watching her bleed out. It seems that it's complicated by the M.E.'s testimony. Right. [00:16:31] Julia Dang: That's right. I mean, he testified the other day either one of those two penetrating wounds that they attributed her death to either one could kill somebody in, quote, minutes to an hour. That is a pretty wide window of time. And he simply can't say. And that's because of the advanced state of decomposition. She may have been dead for weeks to months before her body was found. We saw in very graphic imagery exactly what her body looks like when the pieces were found in body bags inside that vehicle. So he can't say he can't say which penetrating wound happened first. It took them about three months just to finalize their autopsy findings and confirm her cause of death. So he doesn't know what kind of instrument or weapon caused those injuries. The body goes through a lot of change post-mortem. So there was back and forth the other day about just how deep those penetrating wounds really were. They cannot say for sure at this point. [00:17:41] Jesse Weber: I have to tell you, I was reading your notes, an interesting name popped up. Somebody that I was wondering if they were going to testify at this preliminary hearing. Somebody that we knew was a purported associate or friend of David's. Somebody who created some social media video in anticipation of this case. And that is Asia Collins. We never really understood what her connection or role was to this. We sure did get a lot more information today about Asia Collins, didn't we? [00:18:09] Julia Dang: We did, Jesse. Jesse, turns out Asia Collins, who is an L.A.-based influencer social media model. She's got a presence at a platform online. Turns out it was her association with David and their rumored friendship or perhaps early stages of dating that made Celeste incredibly upset. And that is what Celeste cites as the source of her anger when she is threatening David and telling him over text the night before he sent the Uber to pick her up and deliver her to his home. She tells him over text that she's going to quote mutilate his . She tells him that she doesn't want to see one more instance of David being tagged in posts with Asia Collins. Asia did come out on the record and state publicly after the charges were filed against David that she never dated him. She also came out and says she wants justice for Celeste. Now, we don't know if she may be called as a witness during the trial, but her name did come up today. And we've been waiting to see what kind of role she played in all of this. [00:19:29] Jesse Weber: But again, this goes to this whole idea that the defense is saying Celeste was the one who wanted to come over. Celeste was the one who was dangerous. Celeste was the one who was violent. Celeste was the one that was threatening him. And I appreciate where you said the court kind of put a limitation to that, but you're seeing where the defense may go if this ultimately goes to trial. However, we've been talking about the kind of the holes in the defense's case. Something else that Detective Farrell mentioned today, I was hoping you could amplify it, was this idea of tracking the movements of the car and the phone. That came up today, right, about David's electronic signature, electronic movements. Can you talk to us about that? That's right. [00:20:10] Julia Dang: It came up again. This was from testimony that another LAPD expert spoke to a couple days ago last week during the first few days of this preliminary hearing. And in short, what that testimony established was that David's phone and David's Tesla were moving, you know, in the same place at the same time the night that Celeste was allegedly killed. So that came up again today and they reminded the courts that as part of the prosecution's case, they found David left or David's vehicle and his phone left his Hollywood Hills home at about 11:30 PM. So about an hour and a half after Celeste arrived at that home and then headed up to Lake Kachuma. Now he went further north than that to charge his Tesla. David stopped at a supercharger location and there were photos shown to the court today as part of the people's exhibit of the infotainment system in David's Tesla. So that tracks, I think, without a lot of room for doubt, where the vehicle was. There's still a question as to whether there's any surveillance footage that shows David inside the car. Defense obviously pointed that out the other day. There is nothing so far that places the defendant definitively inside his car as it's moving away from the house up to Lake Kachuma, where the victim's passport card was found months later. [00:21:45] Jesse Weber: Dave Kachuma: Julia, I thought another interesting point was about Celeste's family. There seemed to be a big conversation today about what did they allegedly know or seemingly know about David's purported alleged illegal sexual relationship with Celeste. Which, by the way, and we'll talk about this in a minute, the prosecution said even if there's this idea that David was mistaken about how old Celeste was, that's not a legal defense to the charge that he's facing. And we talked last week about all the alleged imagery and photos and text messages potentially proving their sexual relationship, which is pretty disgusting to say the least, that whole conversation. But the point is, I have to bring it up. There was testimony today regarding what Celeste's family knew. And if I'm reading your notes correctly, did her parents walk in right as this was happening? [00:22:39] Julia Dang: So, to be clear, Jesse, as you stated, and the prosecution made this very clear in court today several different ways, it does not matter how old Celeste told David she was. That does not absolve him of these child sexual abuse charges. It does not matter if she lied to him about her age and said she was 18 when she was 13. That does not change the factual substance surrounding that particular charge, sexual abuse of a minor under 14. It also does not matter that her parents consented to letting her travel with him. It also does not matter that her parents, her aunts, her cousins, and apparently her older sister were aware that she spent time with him, went to the mall with him, went to the movies with him. That does not make it okay for him to have sexual relations with this child. So that did come up. And I think that's part of this bigger story, right? We're getting a more colorful picture of what was happening around not only David, but Celeste. Yes, it does seem like, based on the evidence shown to the court today, people around her, including her family, they were aware the two of them spent time together. But beyond that, we don't know if her parents were aware of this purported abortion that happened in January 2024. And let me just remind you, in January 2024, Celeste was still 13 years old. We don't know if her parents were aware that he was instructing her to take Plan B. We don't know if they were aware of who she was with and what they were doing when she ran away from home, from her home in Lake Elsinore, at David's prompting. He called that OA. He had a name for those runaway operations. He called them Operation Awesome. He was talking to her over text in records that we've seen. He was talking to her about getting married, starting a family. He told her over text, you know, if you have twins, great, because we wanted two kids anyway. She was 13 years old when they were having those conversations. [00:25:06] Jesse Weber: And Celeste's family in court today was listening to all this? [00:25:09] Julia Dang: They were. Her parents, Jesus and Mercedes, they walked in a little bit late. They came in around 10 in the morning and they're sitting through this testimony. They are sitting there through closing statements and we feel their presence. [00:25:25] Jesse Weber: By the way, how is David acting and behaving in court today? [00:25:29] Julia Dang: He's so interesting to watch, Jesse, because the responses, the reactions I think you would expect from somebody in his position. And we're not seeing those and we're not seeing those and I'm sitting at an angle, maybe about 15 to 20 feet behind him. So I can see from from the side and his facial expressions. You know, he walked in this morning. He was smiling, laughing a little bit, sidebarring with his attorneys. And he's been sitting in his usual seat at the end of the council table, kind of staring straight ahead for most of today. But he did start taking notes and that was something we didn't see during the first three days of this preliminary hearing. But he was jotting something down as they were going back and forth, talking about the text message conversations. Beyond that, you know, we haven't heard much from him. He's he's very still. You know, he's not moving much. He's not fidgeting the way that he was on Friday when testimony was dissecting the child sexual abuse material found on his phone. But it's it's very interesting to observe him. I've had a couple of hallway conversations during breaks with the courtroom sketch artist and she agrees. I mean, in her words, she says it's like he's off on a different plane where we just left off when you got out of court to speak to us. [00:27:00] Jesse Weber: The defense, I understand, had made a motion to basically say, hey, listen, court, there's insufficient evidence for this case to move forward. And as we're talking about, by the way, it's interesting. We've always wondered why was there no grand jury indictment in this case? My mind is thinking maybe there's an issue with some of the holes we're talking about. But talk to me about if you can summarize what have been some of the arguments from the defense today about why there's not enough evidence to support these specific charges, the elements of these charges. And what have you heard from the prosecution in response? [00:27:31] Julia Dang: So what we just heard from the defense before breaking for lunch, defense attorney Marilyn Bidnarski was laying out five issues that she has with the prosecution's case. Essentially, she is alleging they don't have any evidence proving murder. She says they only have evidence that can support concealment and transportation of a body. They also spent quite a bit of time attacking the three special circumstances surrounding that first degree murder charge that make it eligible for the death penalty. It seems like there's a lot of focus on that. And of course, that's lying in wait murder for financial gain or in this case, murder to prevent financial loss, which the prosecution has established is essentially the same thing. And murder of a witness to a crime which the prosecution has established, they can apply even though there was no pending criminal investigation yet. So there's a lot of focus, I think, on invalidating those special circumstances and perhaps saving their client from the death penalty, which the DA, the LA County District Attorney Nathan Hockman, hasn't actually decided whether or not they're going to pursue. There wasn't a lot of back and forth in the defense team's closing statement relating to the charge for which I think there is the most hard evidence for, the continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 charge. But three felonies here, including mutilation, unlawful mutilation of human remains, first degree murder, and the continuous sexual abuse of a child charge. After prosecution wraps, I believe defense may have another opportunity to respond. So there's still a question mark on whether this is actually going to end today or if this might continue into Tuesday morning. [00:29:28] Jesse Weber: Julia Dang, thank you so much for coming on. I really, really appreciate it. So after I finished up with Julia, this is what came out of court. The judge found that there is sufficient cause to believe the defendant is guilty and to move this trial on all three counts. Talking about how such a low standard it is. The judge reminded this is an exceedingly low standard, sufficient cause to hold someone to answer. Again, probable cause. Apparently, David was staring straight ahead of the judge with his arms folded in front of him as she was reading this case, the law notes, court decisions. So, yes, the judge found that there's sufficient probable cause. This is going to move forward. And it appears that an arraignment on these charges is going to be held on Monday, August 31st at 8:30 a.m. Bail has been denied. And there was also reporting from Julia that David was nodding rapidly as his attorney was whispering to him before waiving the speedy arraignment. So again, Monday, August 31st arraignment at 8:30 a.m. Prosecution agreed. And now we're going to move forward. Now, before we wrap things up, here is Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hockman outside the courthouse after the court's decision. [00:30:39] Speaker 1: Good afternoon. My name is Nathan Hockman. I'm the Los Angeles County District Attorney. Today I am here to announce that Judge Charlene Olmedo held David Anthony Burke, who goes by the name of a singer, David, spelled D4VT, to answer for the horrific and barbaric killing of a 13-year-old at the time, 14-year-old at the time, Celeste Rivas Hernandez. She has held him to answer for first-degree murder with the special circumstances of lying in wait, doing this crime for financial gain and murdering a witness to an investigation. David Anthony Burke has also been held to answer for the mutilation of the remains of Celeste Rivas Hernandez on September 8, 2025. And he has also been held to answer for engaging in continuous lewd and lascivious acts with a 13-year-old. What we have seen in this preliminary hearing and the preliminary hearing was conducted by one of our most experienced deputy district attorneys, who is right here, Beth Silverman, and her team working with the Los Angeles Police Department's Robbery Homicide Division. They methodically presented, over five different days before Judge Olmedo, the evidence that showed, and at this point we had to show it by probable cause. But by probable cause, and I would argue by an overwhelming amount of probable cause, and we will eventually prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. It followed the timeline of the interactions between Celeste Rivas Hernandez, when she started as a 12-year-old, then a 13-year-old, then a 14-year-old, who never got to see her 15th birthday. Because in the intervening time, where she had these interactions with Mr. Burke, he engaged in this sexual conduct with a 13-year-old repeatedly, over and over again. This came out in text messages that were presented, in videos and photographs that were presented to the judge that showed this sexual activity. Miss Silverman methodically tracked the timeline of their interactions during 2022, 23, 24, 25, that eventually led to the time where Celeste Rivas Hernandez went over to Mr. Burke's house in the Hollywood Hills on April 23rd, 2025, and has never been heard of again. But what Miss Silverman and her team were able to show to Judge Olmedo is that on April 23rd, 2025, what actually happened was the brutal and horrific murder of Miss Hernandez, and thereafter, over the ensuing five months, how her body was chopped up, left in the front trunk of a Tesla, only to be discovered on September 8th, 2025, after the towed the car, and this is Mr. Burke's car, had been towed to a tow yard. What now happens is that there will be an information that will be filed within the next week or so. That information will track these three felony counts that have already appeared in the complaint. August 31st will be the arraignment on that information. Thereafter, there will be a trial that will be set. That trial can be set as early as 60 days. And as we saw with the preliminary hearing, where the defense demanded that they have that preliminary hearing done, within the time that the law allows, whatever time they want a preliminary hearing, we were ready. Often, preliminary hearings in a case of this complexity take many, many more months than you have seen in this case. But when the defense demanded a quick preliminary hearing, we said bring it on. And that's exactly what we did. If the defense wants a trial, 60 days out or whenever they want this trial, we will be ready for that trial. So, at this point, again, we don't have the one additional consideration is that Mr. Burke now is eligible for a death penalty. The death penalty considerations are now being weighed. Part of that consideration will be any submission that the defense wants to submit to the district attorney's office. It is something that we will consider on whether or not we will seek the death penalty. At this point, the death penalty determination has not been made. I will now open it up for questions. I have a question for you. [00:35:26] Speaker 4: The defense, during their criminal arguments, may part of the law, what they say, that Celeste Rebells would be very embarrassing when you're doing it. And it uses what they say, that let the ballot into the immigration. The defense made many arguments. [00:35:51] Speaker 1: The defense did not present any evidence. And by the way, the defense doesn't have to do anything in a criminal case. At all points in time, a defendant is presumed innocent until or less proven guilty. Even today, it was by probable cause. And at a trial, it will be beyond a reasonable doubt. We will have to convince 12 jurors unanimously to find every element of the crime in order to actually get a conviction. So the defense has made many arguments. Again, they are arguments at this point. The arguments themselves are not evidence. If and when the defense wants to present evidence at any point, we will match and meet that evidence and overcome any of the arguments or evidence in the trial that will be upcoming. [00:36:35] Speaker 5: So the other idea that you need to have is that a preliminary hearing is not designed for the prosecution to present all its evidence. [00:36:57] Speaker 1: Mr. Queely is correct from the Los Angeles Times that there was additional evidence that was actually considered in this case that we anticipate being presented at trial. I'm not going to go into the specifics of that additional evidence only to say that we presented a significant but small fraction of our evidence in this preliminary hearing. At a trial, we will present all our evidence because the proof at a trial will be beyond a reasonable doubt. We will not be allowed to use certain hearsay that you can use in a preliminary hearing that you cannot use in a trial. It has to be admissible evidence and the witnesses will need to come in to establish all the foundation, the relevancy and overcome any objections to the type of evidence. So you are correct that there will be additional and significant evidence presented in a trial that wasn't presented here at this preliminary hearing. I will take a question right here. I will take a question right now. [00:37:55] Speaker ?: I will take a question right now. [00:37:55] Speaker 4: I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. [00:38:24] Speaker 1: I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. [00:39:05] Julia Dang: I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. [00:39:07] Speaker 1: I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. [00:39:09] Speaker ?: I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. I will take a question right now. [00:39:24] Speaker 1: So, again, we have said this before. The unspeakable tragedy that the Rivas Hernandez family has had to go through to first lose their daughter, but to then find out how they lost their daughter is something that there are no words to do. All we can do at the district attorney's office is bring justice in this case by bringing that killer to justice. That killer is David Anthony Burke, and we intend to bring him to justice before a jury at a trial in the upcoming future. One more question. [00:40:02] Speaker 5: One more question. [00:40:03] Speaker 1: Right here. Again, at trial, we will bring in all relevant evidence that will establish all the elements of the crimes that have been charged. You heard a preview of that evidence in the preliminary hearing, whether it was, again, certain witness testimony, certain text messages, videos, photographs. There will be business records. And there will also be witnesses that are percipient witnesses. They have information that is relevant to establish the mental state of David Anthony Burke and the acts he committed. That evidence will be presented at trial at the end of which we will be seeking a verdict of guilt on the three counts of which he will be charged. First degree murder with the special circumstances of lying in wait, doing it for financial gain and eliminating a witness in connection with that case, mutilation of human remains and engaging in a continuous series of sexual acts with a minor that are lewd and lascivious acts. Thank you all very much. [00:41:13] Jesse Weber: 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 podcasts. 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, 11:00 p.m. Eastern. See you next time, everybody.