Tupac Shakur Murder Trial Verdict

Judge Carli Kierny (00:00):

The order in which the instructions are given has no significance as to their relative importance. Three, an indictment is but a formal method of accusing a person of a crime and is not of itself any evidence of his guilt. In this case, it is charged in an indictment that on or about the seventh day of September 1996, the defendant committed the offense of murder with use of a deadly weapon within the county of Clark, State of Nevada, contrary to the form, force, and effective statutes in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Nevada. Did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously and knowingly for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in affiliation with the criminal gang, to wit South Side Compton Crips, with malice of forethought killed Tupac Amaru Shakur, a human being, with the use of a deadly weapon, to wit, a firearm, by shooting at and/or into the body of the said Tupac Amaru Shakur, said killing having been willful, deliberate, and premeditated, the defendant being criminally liable under one or more of the following principles of criminal liability, to wit.

(00:52)
One: Directly committing this crime, and/or two: Aiding or abetting in the commission of the crime with the intent that the crime be committed by counseling, encouraging, hiring, commanding, inducing, and/or otherwise procuring the other to commit the crime. To wit, the defendant obtaining a firearm for the purpose of seeking retribution against Tupac Amaru Shakur and/or Marion Knight, AKA Suge. And while in a vehicle with Terrence Brown, AKA Bubble Up, and/or Deandre Smith, AKA Big Dre, and/or Orlando Anderson, AKA Baby Lane, did provide said firearm to Deandre Smith, AKA Big Dre, and/or Orlando Anderson, AKA Baby Lane, with the intent that said co-conspirators commit said crime; and/or three: Pursuant to a conspiracy to commit the crime with the intent of this crime be committed, defendant and/or Orlando Anderson, AKA Baby Lane, and/or Deandre Smith, AKA Big Dre, and/or Terrance Brown, AKA Bubble Up, aiding or abetting and/or conspiring by acting in concert throughout.

(01:44)
It is the duty of the jury to apply the rules of law contained in these instructions to the facts of the case and determine whether or not the defendant is guilty of the offense charged. Four: A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons for an unlawful purpose. To be guilty of conspiracy, a defendant must intend to commit or to aid in the commission of the specific crime agreed to. The crime is the agreement to do something unlawful. It does not matter whether it was successful or not. A person who knowingly does any act to further the object of a conspiracy or otherwise participates therein is criminally liable as a conspirator. However, mere knowledge or approval of or acquiescence in the object and purpose of a conspiracy without an agreement to cooperate and achieving such object or purpose does not make one a party to conspiracy.

(02:23)
Conspiracy is seldom susceptible of direct proof and is usually established by inference from the conduct of the parties. In particular, a conspiracy may be supported by a coordinated series of acts in furtherance of the underlying offense sufficient to infer the existence of an agreement. A conspiracy to commit a crime does not end upon the completion of the crime. The conspiracy continues until the co-conspirator has successfully gotten away and concealed the crime. Five: It is not necessary in proving a conspiracy to show a meeting of the alleged conspirators or the making of an express or formal agreement. The formation and existence of a conspiracy may be inferred from all circumstances tending to show the common intent and may be proved in the same way as any other fact may be proved, either by direct at the testimony of the fact or by circumstantial evidence or by both direct and circumstantial evidence.

(03:05)
Six: Each member of a criminal conspiracy is liable for each act and bound by each declaration of each other member of the conspiracy if the act or the declaration is in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy. The act of one conspirator pursuant to or in furtherance of the common design of the conspiracy is the act of all conspirators. Every conspirator is legally responsible for a specific intent crime of a co-conspirator so long as the specific intent crime was intended by the defendant. A conspirator is also legally responsible for a general intent crime that follows as one of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the object of the conspiracy, even if it was not intended as part of the original plan and even if he was not present at the time of the commission of such act. Seven: Of one member of a conspiracy withdraws from the agreement before an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy's target crimes has been committed by any members of the conspiracy, the withdrawing member is not responsible for the future crimes of his or her co-conspirators.

(03:54)
Withdrawal from a conspiracy requires the following elements. One: that the defendant completely withdrew from the agreement. A partial or temporary withdrawal is not enough. Two: that the defendant took affirmative steps inconsistent with the objectives of the conspiracy to disavow or defeat the objectives of the conspiracy. Three: that the defendant made a reasonable effort to communicate those acts to his co-conspirators or that he or she disclosed the scheme to law enforcement authorities. And four: that the defendant withdrew before any member of the group committed an overact in furtherance of the conspiracy. An affirmative step would include an act that is inconsistent with the purpose of the conspiracy and is communicated in a way that is reasonably likely to reach the other members, but some affirmative step is required. A mere cessation of activity in the conspiracy or just avoiding the other members of the group is not sufficient to withdraw.

(04:36)
Eight: Evidence that a person was in the company or associated with one or more other persons alleged or proved to have been members of a conspiracy is not in and of itself sufficient to prove that such person was a member of the alleged conspiracy. However, you are instructed that the presence, companionship, and conduct before, during, and after the offense are circumstances from which one's participation in the criminal intent may be inferred. Nine: Where two or more persons are accused of committing a crime together, their guilt may be established without proof that each person did every act constituting the offense charged. All persons concerned in the commission of a crime who either directly and actively commit the act constituting the offense or who knowingly and with criminal intent aid and abet in its commission or, whether present or not, who advise and encourage its commission with the intent of the crime be committed are guarded by the law as principals in the crime less committed and are equally guilty thereof.

(05:21)
A person aids and abets the commission of a crime if he knowingly and with criminal intent aids, promotes, encourages, or instigates by act or advice or by act and advice the commission of such a crime with the intention that the crime be committed. The state is not required to prove precisely which defendant actually committed the crime and which defendant aided and abetted. 10: Murder in the first degree is a specific intent crime. Defendant cannot be liable under a conspiracy and/or aiding and abetting theory for first-degree murder for acts committed by a co-conspirator unless the defendant also had a premeditated and deliberate specific intent to kill. Murder in the second degree may be a general intent crime. As such, the defendant may be liable under conspiracy theory and/or aiding or abetting for murder of the second degree for acts committed by a co-conspirator if the killing is one of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the object of the conspiracy.

(06:03)
11: In this case, the defendant is accused of an indictment alleging an open charge of murder. This charge may include murder of the first degree or murder of the second degree. The jury must decide if the defendant is guilty of any offense and, if so, of which offense. 12: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice of forethought, either expressed or implied. The unlawful killing may be affected by any of the various means by which death may be occasioned. 13: Malice of forethought means the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal cause or excuse or what the law considers adequate provocation. The condition of mind described as malice of forethought may arise from anger, hatred, revenge, or from particular ill will, spite, or grudge toward the person killed. It may also arise from any unjustifiable or unlawful motive or purpose to injure another proceeding from a heart fatally bent on mischief or with reckless disregard of consequences and social duty.

(06:48)
Malice of forethought that does not imply deliberation or the lapse of any considerable time between the malicious intention to injure another and the actual execution of the intent but denotes an unlawful purpose and design as opposed to accident and missed chance. 14: Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice may be implied when no considerable provocation appears or when all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. 15: Murder of the first degree is murder which is perpetrated by means of any kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. All three elements, willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt before an accused can be convicted of first-degree murder. Willfulness is the intent to kill. There need be no appreciable space of time between the formation of the intent to kill and the act of killing.

(07:32)
Deliberation is the process of determining upon a course of action to kill as a result of thought, including weighing the reasons for and against the action considering the consequences of the action. A deliberate determination may be arrived at in a short period of time, but in all cases the determination must not be formed in passion, or if formed in passion, it must be carried out after there has been time for the passion to subside and deliberation to occur. In here [inaudible 00:07:55] rash impulse is not deliberate even though it includes the intent to kill. Premeditation is a design and determination to kill distinctly formed in the mind by the time of the killing. Premeditation need not be for a day, an hour, or even a minute. It may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts of the mind. For if the jury believes from the evidence that the act constituting the killing has been perceived by and has been the result of premeditation, no matter how rapidly the act follows the premeditation, it is premeditated.

(08:19)
16: The law does not undertake to measure in units of time and length of the period during which the thought must be pondered before it can ripen into an intent to kill, which is truly deliberate and premeditated. The time will vary with different individuals and under varying circumstances. The true test is not the duration of time, but rather the extent of the reflection. A cold calculated judgment and decision may be arrived at in a short period of time, but a mere unconsidered and rash impulse, even though it includes an intent to kill, is not deliberation and premeditation as will fix an unlawful killing as murder of the first degree. 17: Although your verdict must be unanimous as to the charge, you do not have to agree on the theory of liability. Therefore, even if you cannot agree on whether the facts established the defendant is liable as a principal, aider or an abetter or co-conspirator, so long as all of you agree that the evidence establishes the defendant's guilt of murder in the first degree, your verdict shall be murder of the first degree.

(09:05)
18: You are instructed that if you find the state has established that the defendant has committed first-degree murder, you shall select first-degree murder as your verdict. The crime of first-degree murder includes the crime of second-degree murder. You may find the defendant guilty of second-degree murder if one: you have not found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of murder of the first degree and two: all 12 of you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime of second-degree murder. If you are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the crime of murder has been committed by the defendant, but you have a reasonable doubt as to whether such murder was of the first or second degree, you must give the defendant the benefit of that doubt and return a verdict of murder in the second degree.

(09:37)
19: All murder which is not murder of the first degree is murder of the second degree. Murder of the second degree is murder with malice of forethought, but without the admixture of premeditation and deliberation. 20: The killing of another person in self-defense is justified and not unlawful when the person who does the killing actually and reasonably believes one: there is imminent danger that the assailant will either kill him or cause him great bodily injury and two: it is absolutely necessary under the circumstances for him to use, in self-defense, force or means that might cause the death of the other person for the purpose of avoiding death or great bodily injury to himself. 21: A bare fear of death or great bodily injury is not sufficient to justify killing. To justify taking the life of another in self-defense, the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person placed in a similar situation.

(10:18)
The person killing must act under the influence of those fears alone and not in revenge. 22: An honest but unreasonable belief in the necessity for self-defense does not negate malice and does not reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter. 23: The right of self-defense is not available to an original aggressor, that is, a person who has sought a quarrel with a design to force a deadly issue and thus, through his fraud, contrivance, or fault, to create a real or apparent necessity for making a felonious assault. However, where a person without voluntarily seeking, provoking, inviting, or willingly engaging in a difficulty of his own free will is attacked by an assailant, he has the right to stand his ground and need not retreat when faced with the threat of deadly force. 24: Actual danger is not necessary just to justify killing in self-defense. A person has a right to defend from apparent danger to the same extent as he would from actual danger.

(11:01)
The person killing is justified if, one: he is confronted by the appearance of imminent danger, which arouses in his mind an honest belief and fear that he's about to be killed or suffer great bodily injury and two: he acts solely upon these appearances and his fear and actual beliefs; and three: a reasonable person in a similar situation would believe himself to be in like danger. 25: The killing is justified even if it develops afterwards that the person killing was mistaken about the extent of the danger.

(11:24)
26: If evidence of self-defense is present, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. If you find that the state has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense, you must find the defendant not guilty. 27: If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that the danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save his own life or to prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary and the person killed was the assailant or that the slayer had really and in good faith endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.

(11:53)
28: You are instructed that if you find the defendant guilty of first or second degree murder, you must also determine whether or not a deadly weapon was used in the commission of the crime. If you find beyond reasonable doubt that a deadly weapon was used in the commission of the crime, you shall return the appropriate guilty verdict reflecting with use of a deadly weapon. If, however, you find that a deadly weapon was not used in the commission of such an offense, but you find it was committed, then you shall return the appropriate guilty verdict reflecting that a deadly weapon was not used. 29: "Deadly weapon" means any instrument which, if used in the ordinary manner contemplated by its design and construction, will or is likely to cause substantial bodily harm or death or any weapon, device, instrument, material, substance which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used, or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing substantial bodily harm or death.

(12:33)
A firearm is a deadly weapon. 30: The state is not required to have recovered the deadly weapon used in an alleged crime or produced the deadly weapon in court at trial to establish that a deadly weapon was used in the commission of the crime. 31: If more than one person commits a crime and one of them uses a deadly weapon in the commission of that crime, each may be convicted of using the deadly weapon even though they did not personally himself or herself use the weapon. An unarmed offender uses a deadly weapon when the unarmed offender is liable for the offense. Another person liable to the offense is armed with and uses a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense, and the unarmed offender had knowledge of the use of the deadly weapon. 32: To constitute the crime charged, there must exist a union or joint operation of an act forbidden by law and an intent to do the act.

(13:16)
The intent of which an act is done is shown by the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Do not confuse intent with motive. Motive is what prompts a person to act. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done. Motive is not an element of the crime charge, and the state is not required to prove a motive on the part of the defendant in order to convict. However, you may consider evidence of motive or lack of motive as a circumstance in the case. 33: The defendant is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. This presumption places upon the state the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt every element of the crime charged that the defendant is the person who committed the offense. A reasonable doubt is one based on reason. It is not mere possible doubt; it is such a doubt as would govern or control a person in the more weighty affairs of life.

(13:53)
If the minds of the jurors after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence are in such a condition that they can say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge, there is not a reasonable doubt. Doubt, to be reasonable, must be actual, not mere possibility or speculation. If you have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, he is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. 34: You are here to determine if the defendant is guilty or not guilty based on the evidence in the case. You are not called upon to return a verdict as to the guilt of any other person. So if the evidence in the case convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant, you should so find even though you may believe one or more persons are also guilty.

(14:25)
35: The evidence you are to consider in this case consists of the testimony of the witnesses, the exhibits, and any exact facts admitted or agreed to by counsel. There's two types of evidence, direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is the testimony of a person who claims to have personal knowledge of the commission of the crime which has been charged, such as an eyewitness. Circumstantial evidence is the proof of a chain of facts and circumstances which tend to show whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The law makes no distinction between the way to be given either direct or circumstantial evidence. Therefore, all the evidence in the case, including the circumstantial evidence, should be considered by you in arriving at your verdict. Statements, arguments, and opinions of counsel are not evidence in the case. However, if the attorney stipulates to the existence of a fact, you must accept the stipulation as evidence and regard that fact as proved.

(15:03)
You must not speculate to be true any insinuation suggested by a question asked to a witness. A question is not evidence and may be considered only as it supplies meaning to the answer. You must disregard any evidence to which an objection was sustained by the court or any evidence stricken by the court. Anything you may have seen or heard outside the courtroom is not evidence and must be disregarded. 36: It is a constitutional right of a defendant in a criminal trial that he may not be compelled to testify. Thus, the decision as to whether he should testify is left to the defendant on the advice and counsel of his attorney. You must not draw any inference of guilt from the fact that he does not testify, nor should this fact be discussed by you or enter into your deliberations in any way. 37: You have heard evidence regarding drug trafficking, federal convictions, and gang affiliation of the defendant.

(15:43)
This evidence was not offered to show propensity of the defendant to commit crimes, and you may not consider this evidence for that purpose. You may only consider this evidence for the purpose of motive, identity, or the credibility of the defendant's statements. 38: A proffer agreement is a contractual agreement between a specific government entity and a defendant that obligates that specific government entity and that defendant to its terms wherein both sides of the contract expect a benefit in exchange for entering into the contract. It does not bind any other specific government entity. In this case, you have heard the defendant entered through counsel into an agreement with the United States government. The state of Nevada is not bound by that agreement. 39: A statement need not have been made by the defendant himself to be considered his own statement. If you find that the defendant by his own words or conduct manifested that he adopted a statement or believed it to be true, you may consider that statement as the defendant's own statement, the same as if he had made it himself.

(16:32)
40: Statements the defendant made during a police interview have been admitted in evidence. Such statements may be confessions, which are acknowledgements of guilt, or admissions, which are acknowledgements of the existence of facts that tend to incriminate the defendant, or neither. If you determine any statement of the defendant made during the interview to be a confession or admission, you must first determine if the statement was voluntarily made. A confession or admission is not voluntary if it was coerced by physical intimidation or psychological pressure such that the defendant's capacity for self-determination was critically impaired and his or her will was overborne at the time he or she made the confession or admission. Improper coercive police activities and necessary predicates of finding that a confession or admission is not voluntary, and there must be a link between the course of conduct and the defendant's confession or admission. A confession or admission is not rendered involuntary by moral or psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than improper police coercion.

(17:19)
Police coercion does not include factors which motivate a person to speak because of self-interest or the expectation of a benefit. 41: In making a decision about the voluntariness of a confession or admission, you should consider all the evidence about the statement, including the circumstances under which the defendant may have made it. Factors should be considered in determining whether a confession or admission was voluntary include one: the use of the accused, two: his or her lack of education or his or her low intelligence. Three: the lack of any advice of constitutional rights. Four: the length of the detention. Five: the repeated and prolonged nature of questioning. And six: the use of physical punishment such as the deprivation of food or sleep. The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the defendant's confession or admission to police was voluntarily made. To prove something by the preponderance of the evidence is to prove that it is more likely true than not true.

(18:02)
This is a lesser burden than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If you determine a confession or admission of the defendant was not voluntary, you may not consider it for any purpose. If you determine a confession of the defendant was voluntary, you may consider it like any other testimony or evidence in the case. 42: Where independent evidence establishes that the victim's death was caused by the criminal agency of another, a defendant's own statements, if believed, admitting the crime need not be further corroborated by evidence connecting the defendant to that crime. It is up to the jury to determine the weight to be given any admission or confession.

(18:32)
43: Whenever there is slight evidence that a conspiracy existed and that the defendant was one of the members of the conspiracy, then the statements and the acts by any person. Likewise, a member of the conspiracy may be considered by the jury as evidence in the case as to the defendant found to have been a member of the conspiracy, even though the statements and acts may have occurred in the absence and without the knowledge of the defendant, provided such statements and acts were knowingly made and done during the continuance of such conspiracy and in furtherance of some object or purpose of the conspiracy.

(18:59)
44: The credibility or believability of a witness should be determined by his manner upon the stand, his relationships with the parties, his fears, motives, interests, or feelings, his opportunity to have observed the matter to which he testified, the reasonableness of his statements, and the strength or weakness of his recollections. If you believe a witness has lied about any material fact in the case, you may disregard the entire testimony of that witness or any portion of his testimony which is not proved by other evidence. 45: A witness who has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a particular science, profession, or occupation is an expert witness. An expert witness may give his opinion as to any matter in which he is skilled. You should consider such expert opinion and weigh the reasons, if any, given for it. You are not bound, however, by such an opinion; give it the weight you deem it not entitled, whether that be great or slight, and you may reject it if, in your judgment, the reasons given for it are unsound.

(19:43)
46: Although you are to consider only the evidence in the case in reaching a verdict, you must bring to the consideration of the evidence your everyday common sense and judgment as reasonable men and women. Thus, you are not limited solely to what you see and hear as witnesses testify. You may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence which you feel are justified in the light of common experience. Keeping in mind such inferences should not be based on speculation or guess. A verdict may never be influenced by sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion. Your decision should be the product of sincere judgment and sound discretion in accordance with these rules of law. 47: During this trial, you have received into evidence certain audio recordings together with typewritten transcripts of those recordings to help you follow along and understand their contents. Keep in mind the recordings themselves are the evidence in the case.

(20:21)
The transcripts are provided only as an aid to assist you in understanding the recording. 48: In your deliberation, you may not discuss or consider the subject of punishment, as that is a matter which lies solely with the court. Your duty is confined to the determination of whether the state has proven that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 49: When you retire to consider your verdict, you must select as one of your number to act as foreperson, who'll preside over your deliberation and will be your spokesperson here in court. During your deliberation, you'll have all the exhibits which were admitted into evidence, these written instructions, and forms of verdict which have been prepared for your convenience. Your verdict must be unanimous. As soon as you have agreed upon a verdict, have it signed and dated by your foreperson and then return with it to this room. 50: If during your deliberation you should desire to be further informed on any point of law or again hear portions of the testimony, you must reduce your request to writing signed by the foreperson. The officer will then return you to court, where the information sought will be given to you in the presence of and after notice to the district attorney and the defendant and his counsel. Playbacks of testimony are time-consuming and are not encouraged unless you deem it a necessity. Should you require a playback, carefully describe the testimony will be played back so the court reporter can arrange your notes. Remember the court is not at liberty to supplement the evidence. If during your deliberation you should desire to be further informed on any point of law or again hear portions of the testimony, you may send a note through the marshal signed by one or more of you.

(21:37)
No member of the jury should ever attempt to communicate with me except by signed writing, and I will respond to the jury concerning the case only in writing or here in open court. If you send out a question, I will consult with the lawyers before answering it, which may take some time. You may continue to do your deliberations while waiting for the answer to any questions. Remember, you are not to tell anyone, including me, how the jury stands numerically or otherwise on any questions submitted to you, including the question of the guilt of the defendant until after you've reached a unanimous verdict or have been discharged. 51: During deliberations, other than deliberating with each other in the deliberation room, jurors are not to one: communicate with anyone in any way regarding this case or its merits, either by phone, text, internet, or other means.

(22:13)
Two: read, watch, listen to any news or media accounts or commentary about the case. Three: do any research, such as consulting dictionaries, using the internet, or using reference materials. And four: make any investigation, test the theory of the case, recreate any aspect of the case, or in any way investigate or learn about the case on your own. 52: Now you will listen to the arguments of counsel, who will endeavor to aid you to reach a proper verdict by refreshing your mind of the evidence and by showing the application thereof to the law. But whatever counsel may say, you will bear in mind that it is your duty to be governed in your deliberation by the evidence as you understand it and remember it to be and by the laws given to you in these instructions with the sole, fixed, and steadfast purpose of doing equal and exact justice between the defendant and the state of Nevada. Given this 31st day of August 2026 by District Court Judge Carli Kierny. All right. State, are you prepared to give your closing argument at this time?

Attorney Binu Palal (23:03):

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge Carli Kierny (23:04):

You may proceed whenever you're ready, Mr. Palal.

Attorney Binu Palal (23:09):

You folks got all that from the judge? About two weeks ago, exactly two weeks ago, I came before you and said this was a case about gang retaliation and revenge. Nearly 30 years ago, Orlando Anderson was beaten at the MGM Grand by Tupac Shakur, Suge Knight, and the group that he was with. And Orlando Anderson was somebody of consequence in the South Side Crips. And Duane Davis was the head of the Burris Street faction in the South Side Crips. And Duane Davis in the culture of gangs could not let that stand. And so what did he do? He acquired a firearm, got his group together, and went hunting for Mr. Shakur and Mr. Knight. They went to Club 662; they didn't find them. They go to a liquor store, decide to have some drinks. Then in happenstance, they happen to run into Tupac and Suge Knight going the opposite way of Flamingo.

(24:12)
And in that moment, a decision is made not to keep going but to make a U-turn, turn around, pass a gun, and shoot into Tupac and Suge's car, killing Tupac Shakur. So I know the judge went over about 52 jury instructions, and I want to go over a couple of them as well so we can kind of understand what we're talking about here. So the first one the judge went, and I kept the numbers up there in case you want to have them, is reasonable doubt. And what the law says is reasonable doubt is based on reason, which is not very helpful; at least I don't find it. But it also tells you what reasonable doubt is not. Doubt, to be reasonable, must be actual, not mere possibility or speculation. And so when holding the state to its burden, you should absolutely be determining whether or not we've met the evidentiary threshold, but possibility and speculation is not reasonable doubt. There's a common-sense instruction. It's number 46. As you may recall, we spent about a week picking you folks to be part of our jury, and we asked a lot of questions.

(25:19)
We asked whether or not you'd accept all kinds of evidence or requires to only have one type of evidence. We asked about what your knowledge of the facts in this case. We asked about your background. I think we even asked about what your favorite movie was. But the goal is to create a cross section of our community. You all have different experiences, different knowledge, different ways of having dealt and processed with information. Moreover, you have a different sense of common sense, right? Different sound sense of judgment. And what the goal here is, you don't have to pretend your judgment or your common sense doesn't exist just because you walk into this courtroom. You bring your common sense as a whole, your judgment as a whole, your personage as a whole when you come to this courtroom.

(26:08)
One thing I think is very important to discuss is in opening the statement, Mr. Sanft told you that you have to corroborate every word of the defendant's sentence in order to believe it. I think he even had a slide up there that said, I mean, not nonsense, but BS, I guess, right? BS. But that's not actually true. That's not the law. Jury instruction number 42 tells you what the law is. "When independent evidence establishes that the victim's death was caused by the criminal agency of another, a defendant's own statement, if believed, admitting the crime need not be further corroborated by evidence connecting the defendant to the crime." So this notion of corroboration, I will tell you, I think we'll discover that there is corroboration, but this notion of corroboration, the mandatoriness of corroboration, does not exist in the law. It is absolutely untrue and not part of our requirement.

Attorney Michael Sanft (27:07):

I apologize, Your Honor. May we approach?

Judge Carli Kierny (27:08):

You may.

Attorney Binu Palal (27:58):

All right. So, like I was saying that the criminal agency of another defendant's own statement, if believed, admitting the crime need not be further corroborated by the evidence. So this hunt for corroboration that Mr. Sanft has put you on is not a legal requirement, but what I told you is I think there is corroboration, and I think we'll talk about that as we go on. But the one thing we have to prove without corroboration is that somebody was killed by the act of another. We don't have to say who that person is. We don't have to corroborate who that person was, but we have to say somebody was killed by the act of another. And here we know Tupac Shakur's death was caused by the criminal act of another person. So we've met that threshold. And once we've made that threshold, no further corroboration is required.

(28:47)
The last general instruction I want to talk to you about is direct versus circumstantial evidence. That's jury instruction number 35. In this courthouse, we have an analogy that we frequently use to explain what direct versus circumstantial evidence is. So if you were to go outside and you saw rain, that would be direct evidence, right? Mr. Davis' confessions are direct evidence of a crime, but there's also circumstantial evidence. So what is circumstantial evidence? Well, in that same analogy, let's say after a long day here at court, you go home, you go to your car, you go home, and you notice that there's dark clouds in the air, a little bit of humidity, the weather's a little bit cooler than you'd normally expect, and then you go inside to your house. While going inside your house, you see the sidewalks are dry, the grass is dry, all of that.

(29:43)
You go to sleep, you wake up the next morning, and you notice that the ground is wet, the grass is wet, maybe your car is wet. That is circumstantial evidence that it rained, and so you have direct evidence. "I saw it. I was there." And circumstantial evidence, those facts that exist that show something happened. And I will submit to you that this case is drenched with circumstantial evidence even beyond Mr. Davis' statements.

(30:17)
So I want to do a little experiment as we go through this. Instead of focusing on Mr. Davis' statements, let's see what happens if we just throw all those statements away and see what we have. Because it seems like you've been told that there's nothing that exists outside of Mr. Davis' statements, and that is simply not true. So we know we heard from gang detectives that Compton was a 10 square miles that had two gangs that are relevant to this case, Mob Piru, South Side Compton Crips. Bobby Ladd told you that. And Reggie Wright Jr. and Mob James told you that Death Row Records had the head, Suge Knight, and one of its main artists, Tupac Shakur. And interestingly enough, we learned that there were two types of security. There was a Mob security and Death Row security. And the Mob security for our purposes involved Mob James McDonald, his brother Alton "Buntry" McDonald, Roger "Neckbone" Williams, and Trevon Lane.

(31:15)
And that the more straight security or official security was Reggie Wright Jr. and Frank Alexander. And Frank Alexander was the person that was with Tupac Shakur the night that he was killed. We also know that their rival was the South Side Compton Crips. We heard that from a lot of people outside of Mr. Davis. In fact, we heard from Bobby Ladd and Devonta Lee, Dirt Rock, say that Duane Davis was the leader of the South Side Compton Crips. You actually even heard Wade Lee, the detective who was investigating him on narcotics charge, say that he was the leader of the South Side Compton Crips due to his narcotics trade, that money was the lifeline of gangs. Bobby Ladd, he went so far as to say he was the shot caller of the South Side Compton Crips. And Bobby Ladd is the person who could tell you that. He was the one working gangs in the 1990s in Compton. Moreover, since then he's become an expert talking to people all around the world about the gangs of Compton, particularly the Crips and the Bloods.

(32:20)
So outside of anything Mr. Davis has said, you can establish that he was a leader, a shock caller, the narcotics trafficker. We also know through Devonta Lee and Bobby Ladd that Orlando "Baby Lane" Anderson was a member of the South Side Compton Crips and also Duane Davis's nephew. In fact, Detective Dupree also tells you that Orlando "Baby Lane" Anderson was very close. He used the word "prince" of South Side, only behind Duane Davis. And then we also learned about the other members of the South Side Compton Crips. We learned about Terrence "Bubble Up" Brown, Corey "C Ray" Edwards, who we did not get to show up. We learned about Deandre "Big/Freaky Dre" Smith. We heard about Orlando "Baby Lane" Anderson. And then we had Devonta "Dirt Rock" Lee also testify here today. He told you about these folks, as did Bobby Ladd.

(33:18)
We also learned about the connection between Keffe D and Eric "Zip" Martin. We learned about that through both Wade Lee, who did the narcotics investigation into Duane Davis, and we learned it through Bobby Ladd, who told you that he was assisting in federal investigations with Duane Davis and his connection with Zip Martin. And in fact, what Bobby Ladd had told you was that Duane Davis had gotten so high on the food chain that he wasn't somebody that Bobby Ladd would be investigating as a gang detective. That was more of a FBI, DEA type investigation. Through Mike Dorsey, we also learned about the connection between Sean Combs and Zip Martin. We also learned from...

Speaker 1 (34:00):

... Martin. We also learned from Dirt Rock and from Reggie Wright Jr. and from Mob James that Duane Davis was providing some form of security for Bad Boy Entertainment. Now, this is not official security. This is just be around, make sure our guys are okay in case they run into mob guys. And we learned that from all those other witnesses, not a word from Duane Davis. And then we learned from all those witnesses that this developed into a rivalry that involved both gangs and music lanes.

(34:40)
Then we had the Lakewood Mall incident. Now we've heard a lot of people talk about having heard about the Lakewood Mall incident, including Bobby Ladd and Reggie Wright Jr. and a number of other folks, but we actually heard from somebody who was there. We heard from Dirt Rock himself. He said there was five or six, there was a number of mob guys there, the number of South Side Crips there, and there was a brawl inside the Foot Locker. And the brawl was so big that it caused a lot of damage inside the Foot Locker. And then we also learned that it was about a Death Row chain or a Death Row chain was involved. We learned from both Devonta Lee and from Bobby Ladd that taking the chain was an ultimate sign of disrespect.

(35:22)
Now let's talk about September 7th, 1996. What else do we know about September 7th, 1996 that doesn't involve Duane Davis' estate? Well, we know the Burris Street Crew was in Las Vegas. We know at least two of them. Orlando Anderson, there's a receipt for him at the Excalibur Casino on September 6th, 1996 through September 8th. You see it in his name. We also know that Corey Edwards, one of the older OGs, one of the older guys in the South Side Compton Crips was in Las Vegas as well. And that's proved independent of anything Duane Davis has said in this receipt. But the same time period, there he is. And we also know from Devonta Lee that the older folks would tend to be with the older folks who tend to hang out with the older folks, the younger folks would tend to hang out with the younger folks, which tells you the inference you can draw is that the older folks are staying at the Monte Carlo.

(36:22)
Then the video that you've seen a number of times, Orlando Anderson getting beat by Tupac Shakur, Suge Knight, Buddy, Nick Bone, Trayvon Lane. Reggie Wright Jr., we identified all those folks for you. And then you heard from security and from patrol that the person who was in the Dan Marino jersey was in fact Orlando Baby Lane Anderson.

(36:59)
The other thing you heard was that when Orlando Anderson was asked, "Do you want to press charges or do you want to assist or do you want medical attention?" Orlando says, "No. No." And what you learned from the witnesses is Orlando's beating required immediate violent retaliation. Bobby Ladd told you that he could not go back into the Compton and had suffered such a public beat down. Mob James put it more succinctly when I asked him, "Hey, there's this rumor that Tupac knocked you out." And what did Mob James say? "I would have shot him." I couldn't even get the sentence out of my mouth because that was the nature of the gang life in the 1990s in Compton.

(37:46)
What Mob James said is, "You had no choice. You You could not go back to Compton having gotten beaten publicly, otherwise you were going to be tested by every person in your neighborhood." The need for retaliation exists without a single word from to Orlando.

(38:07)
Then two and a half hours after the beating, Tupac and Suge leave for Club 662. And we heard from three people who were part of that entourage. We heard from Malcolm Greenidge, who was a performing artist, a member of the Outlaws, one of the groups that Tupac was associated with. We heard from Ingrid Stokes and we heard from Leonard Jefferson and they all joined at various points of the entourage.

(38:34)
And here's an interesting question. So were the women yelling for Tupac? So Ingrid Stokes says now, "One of my girls in the back was talking to Suge." Malcolm says, "Yeah, there's something going back and forth. They're talking to Tupac and Suge." And ladies and gentlemen, there's no dispute that they were both there. It's just depending on where you are, your perspective and how you're perceiving things changes. So Ingrid Stokes is in the car with the women. Malcolm Greenidge is in the car behind them. They see how things are going differently. It doesn't mean they weren't there.

(39:11)
And then Ms. Stokes does a favor of drawing this diagram of saying where she was. And what she says is that there's an empty lane to the left, there's Mr. Knight, her car's behind Mr. Knight and then she goes to the right of Mr. Knight. And then I took the opportunity to try and fill some of these gaps, poorly, but some of these gaps. And so what we hear about the lineup, and let's just focus for the time being on the lineup on the left with Suge's car, we heard from William Heidmeyer who had seen what's going on there.

Michael Sanft (40:12):

And then with regards to the vehicles themselves, your testimony was that there was a white van of some sort or maybe a vehicle in front of the black BMW?

William Heidmeyer (40:21):

Yeah, it was a white Dodge Stratus.

Michael Sanft (40:22):

I see. Is that a van? No, that's a car.

William Heidmeyer (40:27):

It's a two door sedan.

Michael Sanft (40:28):

Okay. And then behind it is the BMW?

William Heidmeyer (40:30):

Yes.

Michael Sanft (40:30):

Then behind it are multiple cars leading back?

William Heidmeyer (40:34):

Yes.

Michael Sanft (40:35):

And your testimony was that you had identified, is it a Lexus behind it?

William Heidmeyer (40:40):

I think it was a Lexus, I believe so.

Michael Sanft (40:41):

And then another vehicle and then a white Chevy, and then it just kept going all the way down. Correct. So even though we're identifying these vehicles, you don't know how many vehicles were in the procession or the-

William Heidmeyer (40:52):

It was several. I didn't count them at the time, but it was a good 10 vehicles.

Speaker 1 (40:58):

[inaudible 00:40:59] know about these clips. Ultimately, your memory is what determines what happened in this case. And be careful both of my clips and Mr. Sanft's clips, of what the context is of these statements. Don't just take my clips or Mr. Sanft's clips word for it. Obviously you've taken notes, you were here. So be careful and hold me to the fact that these clips accurately reflect what you remember in the case. But I think that's a pretty long enough presentation to see what he's talking about, all the cars on the left.

(41:32)
Now let's talk about the cars on the right. You have Ingrid in a Sebring and she incidentally you see after the shooting, the white Cadillac goes right on Koval and then Ingrid also follows that Cadillac. Now she's not following the Cadillac because she wants to go attack or pursue the shooting vehicle. She has her head down and she's freaking out and she's like, "Let's get out of here." She makes the immediate right. She happens to follow the Cadillac. Now this is an interesting thing that we talked about perception because Duane Davis says, "Oh yeah, these broads," I think is what he saying, "These broads are trying to follow me." That's his perception. I mean, and to some extent it's understandable. They are following him, but they're not trying to pursue him. They're freaking out and trying to get out from around there. And then he says, "And then we shot at them." And Ingrid says, "It's possible that we were shot at." And then he says, "We shot a windshield there." And then she says, "No, that didn't happen." But a reasonable inference is, well, he thinks they're chasing them. They shoot at them and then they stop. It's a reasonable inference to think that, hey, maybe they stopped because we hit them, right? It's all about people have different perspectives based on what car they are in.

(42:48)
Regarding the shooting, one arm out of the rear driver's side window, one firearm used, and we learned that it's a 40 caliber Glock semi-automatic from the cartridge cases recovered. And it's key. There's only one firearm used. We learned that Suge makes a U-turn once that happens and goes back to Las Vegas Boulevard and ultimately crashes or the wheels on the other side of the car are destroyed from that turn when he gets onto Las Vegas Boulevard and that he stops, he gets out of the car, he's bleeding from the head. And when police arrive, he says, "Help my friend. Help my friend. He's hurt." And a brief note about Mr. Knight, you also heard about Mr. Knight's level of cooperation or lack thereof in this case, right? We learned that from Detective Becker that Mr. Knight did not initially want to come to talk to police. And then when he did, he came with three lawyers. And that when he came, he said, "I didn't know anything. I didn't see anything." And then you also heard from Detective Dan Long who said, "I tried to reach out with him through a friend. I happened to have a friend who played football with him or a coworker that played football with him. I tried to reach out to him then. And then when Mr. Knight heard what it was about, he immediately hung up." So Mr. Knight does not want to be involved in this case for a long time. And has said, at least to police, you heard from Brett Becker that he didn't see anything for whatever that's worth.

(44:22)
We learned that Mr. Shakur is taken into an ambulance. He's able to talk. Malcolm Greenwich says, he tells me, "Get down. I don't want you to get hurt by the officers. I don't want you to get shot." So he's able to talk. He's still communicative. And so Gary Dale, who goes down with him to the hospital says, "Hey, so who did this to you? What information can you get?" And what Mr. Shakur says the whole time is, to the extent he's communicated, "We'll take care of it." Which tells you two things, right? This is further part of the gang culture that's existing. This is the environment that's happening right here. It's not, "Let me tell you who did it" in the same way it wasn't for Orlando Anderson, let me tell you who did it. It was, "We'll take care of it."

(45:02)
The other inference I think you can draw from this though is that "we'll take care of it" is this is not a stranger. This is not a shock. This is not some random person, some random fan off the street. "We'll take care of it." The inference there that you can draw reasonably using your common sense is, "I know what this is about and we will take care of it."

(45:26)
While all this is going on, Reggie Wright Jr. and Mob James are at Club 662. And I think there was some inference that somehow Reggie Wright Jr. was involved in this, but we learned from James McDonald, but "as about impossible" is what he said. That was the exact words, "Impossible." And there at Club 662, Reggie Wright was in charge of legitimate security. Mob James said he was in charge of mob security. Reggie says, "Well, I don't know if that's true. He may have been working on his own hustle," but Mob James says he was in charge of mob security. And then what we know is that from Reggie Wright Jr. that Alton Buntry McDonald and Roger "Neckbone" Williams arrived from the entourage, arrived from where the shooting occurred. Remember Reggie said they told him about the shooting. He though they were joking at first because sometimes they tried to mess with him. They were also part of the group that had beaten Orlando Anderson that day.

(46:24)
So where we are in the timeline is that two people who were part of the entourage come to Club 662 to tell Reggie and to tell Mob James what had happened. In fact, one of them is Mob James's own brother because they told Reggie about the shooting. And what did Reggie relay about the shooting? He immediately calls his father, the lieutenant of the gang unit in Compton and says, "South Side did it." That night, this is not Mr. Davis said South Side did it. This is that night contemporaneous, "South Side did it."

(47:06)
But Mob James goes one step further. He has more specific knowledge. And this is not surprising really because he's talking to not the official security, he's talking to the mob folks, one of whom is his brother. And this is what he has to say about that.

James McDonald (47:22):

When I was a part of that life, I was a part of that. No, because you're asking something that's going to hurt this dude. Okay, let me stop. When we got back to Compton, it was a gang war. People were getting hurt. People was being assaulted. People were looking for certain individuals from his neighborhood as well as they did mine. But Orlando, him and certain other people were being assaulted because people wanted to kill them.

Michael Sanft (48:07):

Sure. Were they the only ones that they wanted to kill?

James McDonald (48:25):

Am I the only one up in here? No, they weren't the only one. It's his neighborhood in particular, but they were the main subjects of a gang war. It was in the middle, such as me.

Michael Sanft (48:26):

So you're telling us that people back home somehow had some type of information that said that that guy and a bunch of other people were involved in what?

James McDonald (48:37):

In the murder of Tupac.

Michael Sanft (48:40):

But my question to you.

James McDonald (48:44):

Stop.

Speaker 1 (48:47):

So I've got to say, been doing this for a while. I have not seen testimony quite exactly go like that, and it's easy to get caught up in what was the drama of that moment and miss the content of the moment. I know I missed some of it as well. I didn't ask any follow-up questions because I was just so caught up in the moment. But if you actually listen to what Mr. McDonald is saying, it's pretty damning regarding Mr. Davis. What does he say? "That night, we know who did it. We're hunting for two people in particular, Orlando Anderson and that dude." That's what he says. And then Mr. Sanft follows up, "Well, for what?" " For the murder of Tupac." Before we get to one word from Mr. Davis, we have contemporaneous 1996 intelligence, 1996 relay of who was responsible for the murder of Tupac Shakur.

(49:47)
And he says two names and two names only, Orlando Anderson and Duane "Keffe D." Davis, this guy. And he doesn't even want to be here as you recall, right? He says, "I don't want to be part of this. I don't want to put you in prison." And even tries to guide Mr. Sanft away from asking these questions that lead to the inevitable conclusion that Mr. Davis is responsible for the murder of Tupac Shakur. And again, we haven't gotten to one word of what Mr. Davis is saying. Not one word. We're not required to give you corroboration, but I don't know anything else to call that.

(50:33)
South Side named that night, Orlando Anderson, Keffe D, before the world had the name, Mob Piru had that name. And the war breaks out in Compton based on this. And it's not a war between two random gangs. Bobby Ladd told you there was over 50 gangs at the time. These two are the ones going back and forth. These two are the ones that are doing the killings. And what you heard is in a mere 10 days, three people were killed on Mob and Piru side. You heard a 10-year-old girl got shot. She wasn't the only one. A lot of folks got shot, but Mob James told you is a lot of people got hurt behind this. And you could see that it was a very real thing to him. It's not just an abstraction. It's not just Mob or South Side. These are real people whose lives were altered forever as a result of this ongoing war. So before Duane Davis has a single word, we know that Duane Davis is the leader and shot caller of the South Side Crips. Orlando Anderson was his nephew and the prince of the South Side Crips, that Zip Martin had a drug connection with Davis and connection with Sean Combs. That South Side through Davis was assisting Bad Boy Records of protection, that there was a fight at Lakewood Mall between Bob Piru and South Side Crips that involved a Death Row chain, that the Burris Street members, Corey Edwards and Orlando Anderson were in Vegas for the Tyson fight.

(51:58)
And one thing I want to add to this is what Bobby Ladd told you is that Burris Street and Glencoe Street would fight, right? There was an internal beef between them. And so I've heard the name Darnell Brim brought up, but which clique did Darnell Brim belong to? He belonged to Glencoe. So there's no way that he's hanging out with Orlando Anderson and Corey Edwards at the MGF. But before we get to a word of his, Tupac, Suge members of the group beat up Orlando Anderson. Two and a half hours later, Tupac, Suge and the rest of the crew were headed to Club 662. The women in a Chrysler Sebring were communicating with Suge and Tupac's car. Now it could just be one woman talking to Suge or it could be a couple women talking to both Tupac and Suge, but we know there's some communication going on that the white Cadillac pulls up and one arm out of the rear driver door shoots into Tupac's car, that the murder weapon is a 40 caliber Glock, that the women in the Sebring follow the white Cadillac, that the reports 2662 from people at the scene to Reggie Wright Jr. said South Side did it and that Mob James McDonald knew exactly who he was hunting for that night, Orlando Anderson and Duane Davis.

(53:05)
So having said all that, now let's get to what Duane Davis said. Now you've heard over eight hours. I'm not going to play that. I'm going to give you a few highlights. And again, just like with the clips of the testimony, it's up to you to determine what's actually real, what's actually not real. So if there's some question about what the clips were, please go back and look. Don't take my word for it. Verify everything, right? But we know that there's four statements in different settings with different motives. We have a 2008 proffer for the feds. We have a 2009 interview with Dan Long and Darren Dupree. We have a 2017 Death Row Chronicles and we have a 2019 book.

(53:48)
And those four statements are not exactly the same. In fact, they're quite different depending on the context, I mean, that's just real. But the four statements are based on what Duane Davis's motivations are. The State's position has never been that Duane Davis just wants to unburden his soul to let everybody know about what happened, that he feels his guilt that he just needs to let off his chest. That's never been the State's position. The State's position is Mr. Davis's actions are always driven by his self-interest. That doesn't mean it's not true. It just means that that's the lens for which you need to look at these statements. So in 2008, the truth helps him. In 2009, the truth can hurt him. In 2017, the truth exposes him. And in 2019, the truth needs an excuse. Well, I'll explain that a little bit more as we go through each one of the statements.

(54:44)
First, let's talk about 2008. The one time truth is the incentive. In 2008, telling the truth helps Duane Davis, right? Because this is the exchange. "You tell the truth, we drop your charges." That's the exchange that's going on here. And Mr. Sanft had mentioned, well, nobody believed Mr. Davis in his opening. "Well, nobody believed this, that's why it took so long to get here." Well, let me ask you this. Have you heard of Duane Davis doing a single day of that life sentence that was hanging over his head? He didn't do a single day on a life sentence hanging over his head. You think that's indicative about whether or not the federal agents, the federal government believe what Duane Davis was telling him was the truth? His incentive here, it's the purest incentive to tell the truth.

(55:39)
One thing that you need to evaluate though, what the judge told you, is you need to determine whether a statement is voluntary or not voluntary. Before you consider it, you've got to make that determination. And a proffer is a voluntary statement because if you look at the voluntary instructions, so it's what is juror instruction number 40, he talks about police coercion. But the one thing that's explicitly clear is police coercion does not include factors which motivate a person to speak because of self-interest or by the expectation of a benefit. Mr. Davis is in that room that he's trying to get out from under a life sentence. And what the law tells you is that is never police coercion.

(56:23)
Additionally, a proffer is not coercion. A proffer agreement is something wherein both sides of the contract expect a benefit in exchange for entering the contract. Federal government expected the benefit. They wanted the information. Mr. Davis wanted a benefit. He wanted to not serve life in prison. And so when you're expecting a benefit that you are not being coerced, that's a matter of law.

(56:50)
So here, the law is clear the benefit expected cannot make a statement involuntary. But the other thing that again is interesting is that at the same time, the benefit gave Duane Davis every reason to tell the truth. Every reason to tell the truth. So let's look at that 2000 statement. I want to play again a few clips.

Michael Sanft (57:13):

What do you tell Zip right then?

Duane Davis (57:15):

What's that?

Michael Sanft (57:16):

Do you tell Zip, "Hey, we're going to go handle this shit," or whatever?

Duane Davis (57:19):

Yeah. They asked like, "Y'all want us to come?" We know where them motherfuckers is at." They was telling us that they going to be at the 662 Club.

Michael Sanft (57:26):

Who was saying that?

Duane Davis (57:26):

Everybody.

Michael Sanft (57:26):

Everybody out there?

Duane Davis (57:26):

Yeah, everybody. They gave them a concert.

Michael Sanft (57:26):

Well, how do you know that Zip's got a gun? Does he tell you?

Duane Davis (57:35):

He told us in the lobby when I met him in the lobby. "I got one."

Michael Sanft (57:39):

Did you ask him, "Do you have one?" Or he just tells you, "Hey, I got one."

Duane Davis (57:43):

Yeah, that's when he asked, "Do we need some help? I got some guns." I'm like, "Yeah. Okay, cool." But only one he gave me. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (57:44):

And from St. Martin. Then he talks about-

Duane Davis (57:44):

We went up to the 626 Club. They didn't show up. We waited about 15, 20 minutes. They didn't show up. So it's like, "Let's go get some liquor." We stopped at the liquor store. I got out of the van with the and jumped in the Cadillac.

Speaker 1 (58:12):

And in other parts of the statement, he tells you who's in the Cadillac with him. And notably, the seating arrangement never changes. It's Terrence T. Brown or Bubble Up, the driver, Mr. Davis as the front passenger, Deandre Big Dre or Freaky Dre Smith in the rear driver's side and Orlando Baby Lane Anderson, Orlando Anderson.

Duane Davis (58:34):

Yeah. I think the little liquor store was right there. Then we came up Harmon at the Las Vegas Boulevard and shit. Here they coming at BMW, "Tupac, Tupac." We're like, "There they go." Made a U-turn. We wasn't supposed to make a U. We just wanted a U-turn and they was in the middle lane and we just pulled up on the side and checked every car to see where they was.

Michael Sanft (59:06):

So what directed your attention to him was some girl shouting at Tupac?

Duane Davis (59:10):

"Tupac." He gave himself away. Otherwise, they would've got away. He all hang out. You know how he do. They was in a ditch and we went and got him.

Michael Sanft (59:20):

He did a U-turn, so then you pull alongside of it. You got entered in the car. Have you already handed Lane the gun at this point or at what point do you hand him the gun?

Duane Davis (59:29):

I though he was going to pull on my side. That's my little nephew. I'm going to look out for him. And he pulled off on his side.

Michael Sanft (59:41):

So you were fitting to blast if you had to, or you were just-

Duane Davis (59:43):

Yeah, if we would've been on my side, I would've blasted.

Michael Sanft (59:46):

Okay. So you hand the gun to the back seat?

Duane Davis (59:48):

Yeah.

Michael Sanft (59:49):

You can hear Lane?

Duane Davis (59:50):

I gave it to Dre and Dre was like, "No, no." And Lane's like "Yeah Fuck dude."

Speaker 1 (59:58):

So a couple things from that is one, Mr. Davis says, "I thought he was going to pull up on my side," which will be important later. And then two, that "I was going to shoot, but then I gave the gun to the back. Dre gave the gun to him."

Michael Sanft (01:00:14):

Lane starts blasting. You say Suge looks over, he sees you?

Duane Davis (01:00:35):

Yeah.

Michael Sanft (01:00:35):

He looks right at you?

Duane Davis (01:00:36):

Yeah, he look at me.

Michael Sanft (01:00:36):

Okay. Why was he looking right at you?

Duane Davis (01:00:36):

Fuck, because we've known each other since we're seven or eight years old.

Michael Sanft (01:00:36):

When he looks over at you, and then Tupac's busy getting shot, evidently the story is Tupac's trying to either get out of the car-

Duane Davis (01:00:41):

Get in the back seat or something.

Michael Sanft (01:00:43):

Yeah. What do you see happening inside of that car?

Duane Davis (01:00:48):

I seen a bullet go in Suge's head. I thought he was dead. I though he was dead. He must have scraped him or something in the head or something.

Michael Sanft (01:00:55):

A piece of glass went into his neck right here.

Duane Davis (01:00:57):

And he had a thing in his head too. I though he was dead.

Speaker 2 (01:01:04):

I'm sorry. Did you guys stop? Did Bubble Up stop the car and just let him get off?

Duane Davis (01:01:09):

Yeah. Then we made the right.

Speaker 2 (01:01:11):

Okay. But he stopped what you said while he, "Boom, boom, boom," got off, then took off?

Duane Davis (01:01:14):

Then we made the right and some broad in the Sebring was following us. Stupid bitches. "Ahh." We shot their window out and they stopped.

Speaker 2 (01:01:26):

So Tupac's trying to jump in the back seat. And what's Suge doing, just ducking?

Duane Davis (01:01:31):

Ducking. He couldn't really duck because he was too big.

Speaker 1 (01:01:38):

And here is when Mr. Davis also mentions the girls in the Sebring. It's hard to hear if he says Sebreez or Sebring, but fundamentally the same thing. And then he says, "They're following us and we're shooting at them, and then we hit the window and they stop." I think that's an inference he's drawing from them all of a sudden stopping because he thinks they're pursuing him. But we know from Ingrid, they're not pursuing him. They're trying to get out of there. They just don't know.

(01:02:06)
So if we look at the 2008 proffer, one of the other interesting things, if you listen to it, is that he actually thinks he's on camera at the MGM. If you listen to him talking about the meeting at the restaurant and the cafe, he says, there's an exchange like, "Y'all saw me there, right? Y'all saw me there?" And then Daryn Dupree says, "Oh man, I was there." He's like, "Oh, you're kidding." But he thinks he's on video. It's the reason why he's never denied being in Las Vegas. He actually thinks he's on video. In fact, he further asks, and you can check the transcript or check the audio itself. He further asks, "Did you guys have video at the valet?"

(01:02:41)
So this is why he thinks he's not giving up much, is because he thinks he's already on video. Now, they don't know the shooting would never be captured on the video, but the idea that he was in Las Vegas, he's never disputed from 1998 to 2023, the whole part of this case is he's never disputed because he thought he was on video.

(01:03:02)
Then he also adds the liquor bar, and what we heard from Mike Dorsey was there actually was a liquor store on Maryland Parkway, right? That's what Mike Dorsey said. Mike Dorsey's a documentarian. He said, "Yeah, I looked that up. There actually was a liquor store on Maryland Parkway in that place." And then I think it was followed up by at some point in the '90s was Lee's Liquor going by Lee's Liquor Bar before there was a cease and desist order.

(01:03:26)
He gives the white Cadillac in the seating position, the 40 caliber firearm, shots from the rear driver. And this is really important because he provides a detail that is not publicly available, right? The Sebring with the women following him. I'm not going to pretend that this case wasn't reported on in the previous years between 1996 and 2008. The caliber of firearm was in the papers. I bet you it was even in Mr. Davis's clinics. The fact that a white Cadillac was involved, absolutely well known. What was not well known, what was never publicized by 2008 was the Sebring with the women following. So where does he get that detail? And what's fascinating about it again is Ingrid's not following him. It just looks like that from the perspective of somebody in the white Cadillac.

(01:04:27)
The open lane. Mr. Davis says, "I thought he was going to pull up on my side so I could do the shooting." And as frequently as I've heard this tape, that part never made any sense to me. And trust me folks, I've listened to this once or twice. And then I saw Ms. Stokes' drawing. What does she tell you? She tells you that this lane is open. In my mind's eye when I'm thinking, well, why would you ever think that the car, if you're all the way to the edge, the car would be pulling up on your side, the passenger side? But Ms. Stokes says that, Mr. Heidmeyer, who's at the Maxim Hotel, remember he's the one looking down on this.

(01:05:14)
He also says that after what he sees is Suge being able to turn immediately, make a U-turn immediately and go back down Flamingo, also indicating that there's nobody in that lane because Suge is not in the left turn lane, right? He's trying to go straight. Then there's nobody in the left turn lane, which is why Mr. Davis could say, "I thought they were going to pull up so I could do the shooting." Because if this lane was full, that makes no sense. But since we know that lane is empty, Mr. Davis's story makes sense.

(01:05:51)
And the other thing about the 2008 proffer is where Mr. Davis pushes back. He's not just saying yes, yes, yes. He suggested Lane in the van too? He corrected. No, he's in the Cadillac. They suggested Orlando's behind the driver. There's confusion about where everybody sat. And Mr. Davis says, "No, Orlando is behind me." And then there's this whole exchange about what they did with the gun. And Mr. Davis said, "We left the gun on the tire of the Cadillac." And the officers just don't believe him. That makes no sense at all. You've got this gun used in a murder. Why would you put that on a tire? That doesn't make any sense at all. And Mr. Davis' attorney, Wayne Higgins says, "I mean, you guys aren't thinking like folks from Compton. You guys are thinking like cops." And then what Mr. Davis says is, "Do you want the truth or you want me to lie?" Because the truth is that's where the gun was. So it's not as though Mr. Davis would not push back when given something that wasn't true.

(01:06:56)
Lastly, Mr. Davis's statement makes no sense as a lie. The 2008 statement makes no sense as a lie. He could have said he was just a witness. He has his attorney with him and he does this in 2009. He could have just said, "Man, Orlando had the gun. I was just in the car along for the ride. I had no idea that this was going to go down." Or, "Man, you want the information about what would happen with the Tupac case? I can give that to you." I was the shot caller. Orlando told me, my nephew told me. Big Dre told me. Terrence "Bubble Up" Brown told me. They all told me what happened. I can give you all the information you need." He never has to put himself in the car. It doesn't make sense as a lie. And mind you, this is for the notorious BIG investigation. This isn't even the Tupac investigation.

(01:07:44)
So if the notion is Mr. Davis is creating this whole story, why would he create the story that makes him legally liable for murder when he could just make himself a witness? His non-public information about the woman, his unnecessary details, and those details are like Zip.

Binu Palal (01:08:00):

... about the woman, his unnecessary details, and those unnecessary details are like Zip. Why are we including Zip? If anything, for somebody who's trying to get away with a lie, it makes it worse because that's something that if Zip were to ever have cooperated, he didn't, but if Zip were ever to cooperate, that's something they could say, "Mo, you're lying, your deal's off." Why add Club 662? Why even add that detail? Why can't it just be, we were driving down the street, I happened to be in the car and then we started blasting? Why add that little granular detail? Because there were other people at Club 662 that could have said, "No, he was never there." Why add the liquor store on Maryland Parkway and the changing of the cars? If anything, all you're doing is implicating more people.

(01:08:43)
He says, "I start off in the van with Corey and these other guys and then they were whining too much. So at the liquor store, I go and switch cars." Why are you adding this unnecessary lie if it's a lie? Why isn't it just, " Man, I heard this is what happened. I saw this is what happened." All these unnecessary details. Why add Dre passing up the shot? What does that contribute if this is a lie?

(01:09:16)
The other thing I'll be upfront with you is that not everything that Mr. Davis recalls 12 years later can be confirmed and some of it's probably wrong. He says that he saw Mr. Shakur the night before, [inaudible 01:09:36] Mr. Shakur the night before, Malcolm Greenidge and Reggie Wright Jr. said they came in Saturday night. These are differences that 12 years later will cause reasonable things that you may not remember. It's not whether or not he gets every detail right 12 years later. What he's focused on is the material things, the material things, which are what happened in that car from the shooting of Tupac Shakur.

(01:09:57)
And if you look at the 2008 federal proffer, he admits to being this outside leader, front passenger seat, gets a gun from Zip, gives the gun to the back of the Cadillac, shots from the rear. And this is when he has the most incentive to tell the truth. So that's about 2009.

(01:10:17)
Now 2009 is just weird. This conversation is just a weird one, right? Because Dan Long is coming in thinking, "I'm going to interview somebody and maybe I'll get information enough to arrest somebody." Wayne Higgins is telling Mr. Davis, "Hey, be careful what you say. You might get arrested." And what's going on there came out during Detective Long's, I think it's cross-examination by Mr. DiGiacomo, is that Duane Davis was trying to work off charges. Again, he's expecting a benefit. So the one thing we know is that it's voluntary because if he's expecting a benefit, it's voluntary. And in fact, he even has his attorney there. He's not hooked up. He's with his attorney there voluntarily to give this interview, but it is weird. And Davis's attorney tells him to distance himself from the gun. So he says... Well, this is what he says.

Audio (01:11:09):

Duane Davis: [inaudible 01:11:10]. Somewhere closer to that. Could I talk to D for a second?

(01:11:09)
Dan Long: Sure. Go ahead.

(01:11:09)
Duane Davis: I'm talking about without you.

(01:11:09)
Dan Long: Oh yeah, absolutely.

(01:11:09)
Duane Davis: [inaudible 01:11:10].

(01:11:09)
Dan Long: I'll step out.

(01:11:09)
Duane Davis: [inaudible 01:11:10]. Just so he can clarify.

(01:11:09)
Wayne Higgin: What's up man? Okay. Hold on one second. Let me close the door really quick. Look, you're doing a pretty good job. And I know it's kind of hard, but you ain't supposed to be getting in to anything like, you was involved in murder, you got to keep it [inaudible 01:11:50].

(01:11:50)
Daryn Dupree: But what you told us, stay consistent with what you told us.

(01:11:53)
Duane Davis: He gave me the gun. He gave me the gun.

Binu Palal (01:12:00):

So what happens here is Dan Long has left the room. Mr. Davis says, "Hey, can I talk to D?" And Dan Long says, "Yeah, sure. But no, with you out of the room." So now you have Detective Darren Dupree, you have Wayne Higgins, Mr. Davis' attorney, and Mr. Davis. And what Wayne Higgins tells Mr. Davis, "Hey, look, you're not supposed to be talking yourself into a murder right now, so be careful." Later in the conversation he says, "This man is here trying to put a case on you." That's what he's trying to do. And what Daryn Dupree is there, Darren was also part of the federal task force. And what Daryn Dupree [inaudible 01:12:37], but you got to keep it consistent. And why? Because if he tells a vastly different story here, then the federal proffer goes away because then the federal government's like, "Well, were you lying then or are you lying now? How can we be assured that you've met your part of the bargain if you are telling a totally different story in these two different instances?"

(01:12:59)
So what Duane Davis is trying to do is thread a needle. He's trying to keep it consistent enough in order to keep his proffer deal where his only incentive was to tell the truth, but not catch a case from Dan Law, not trying to catch a murder case from Dan Law.

(01:13:18)
And what is absolutely fascinating is, so when Wayne Higgins is telling him, "Hey look, hey look, you want to distance yourself from the gun," Mr. Davis pushes back his own attorney, "He gave me the gun. He gave me the gun. Am I not supposed to say that? He gave me the gun." So even in his unguarded moments with a detective and an attorney, he's saying, "Martin gave me the gun." Because the first part of the story says Orlando got the gun. And then after this interlude, he says, "No, no, it was me. He gave me the gun." Now he listens to Wayne. He gives his advice a little bit and he alters the sequence of events a little bit. He says, "I gave Dre the gun before we went hunting, but they were still on their way hunting for Mr. Shakur."

(01:14:08)
And if you look at this statement, he still is the leader of South Side. He's still in the front passenger seat. He still gets the gun from Zip. He still gives the gun to the back of the Cadillac, the sequencing is a little different and the shots are still from the rear. He still puts himself in the Cadillac as the shot caller.

(01:14:29)
Now, 2017 is a completely different scenario. Now the gun is dangerous to admit. And if you recall that some of the conversations that happened, this is the one to the BET Chronicles where we've got some audio and you hear Mike Dorsey's phone clicking a little bit and you hear some pieces of conversation where Mario Diaz is trying to get this information for his TV show. Here, Mr. Davis clearly has liability and even says, "They could give me the death penalty for this." So he's very aware of what he can and cannot say, or at least he's trying to not get in trouble.

(01:15:09)
But he still provides motive because of Orlando's beating. He still provides the same people in the Cadillac. He still goes to 662 to seek a violent confrontation. I think this time it's let's just get into a fight as opposed to a shooting, but it's still a violent confrontation he's seeking. He still sees them on Flamingo. They make a U-turn. They turn to confront Tupac and Suge. The only thing that's different here is that the shots came from the back, "I don't know what happened. I think they were blasted. We were blasted. I have no idea." So the 2017 statement is South Side leader, front passenger seat, gun from Zip he denies, gives the gun to the back of the Cadillac, kind of hedges about where the gun came from and then still shots come from the rear.

Speaker 4 (01:15:51):

Mr. Palal, I've received notification that one of our jurors does need to use the restroom at this time, so we are going to take a break. During this recess, you are [inaudible 01:16:00] to talk or converse amongst yourselves or with anyone else on any subject of the trial or read, watch, list to any report or commentary on the trial of any person connected to this case by any means of information including without limitation useful television, internet, radio or form or express any opinion on any subject connected with the trial until the case is submitted to you. Please rise for our jury. We'll have you rise back here at 10:40. For the record, the jury has exited the room. Is there anything we need to address outside the presence?

Binu Palal (01:16:49):

Not from the state.

Speaker 7 (01:16:49):

No, your honor.

Speaker 4 (01:16:50):

Okay. I anticipate we'll roll straight through at this point. So if anybody needs to use the restroom, counsel, anyone or Mr. Davis, please do at this time.

Binu Palal (01:17:00):

We only have three hours left, Your Honor, so I think we should be fine.

Speaker 4 (01:17:02):

Hilarious. Love it. Back on record in C377407. Anything you need to address before bringing in the jury?

Speaker 3 (01:17:14):

‍