Singer D4vd Gets Public Defender After Lawyers Withdraw in Murder Case
Prosecutors allege David Anthony Burke, known as D4vd, killed Celeste Rivas Hernandez; he is due back in court for arraignment. The case remains undecided.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 31, 2026, 9:17 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 31, 2026, 9:17 a.m. ETFirst report
Singer D4vd Due Back in Court for Rearraignment on Murder Charge
David Anthony Burke, the singer known as D4vd, is due back in court to be arraigned again on murder and other charges, according to ABC11. The case is a criminal matter in district court, and the charges stem from an allegation that Burke killed Celeste Rivas Hernandez last year.
Prosecutors allege that Burke killed Hernandez because she was afraid he would go public with their sexual relationship and ruin his budding music career, ABC11 reported. The case remains open and developing; the cause and circumstances are still subject to legal proceedings.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
- Singer D4vd pleads not guilty, appointed new attorney in Celeste Rivas Hernandez murdernbclosangeles.com
- D4vd due back in court after ordered to stand trial in killing of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandezabc11.com
- D4vd's lawyers withdraw from case in teen's killing; singer now being represented by public defenderabc7.com
- Renowned Lawyers Abandon D4vd, Singer Faces Serious Charges in Murder of 14-Year-Oldalbeu.com
- Celeste Rivas Hernandez's family calls for D4vd to face death penalty in teen's murdernbclosangeles.com
- Family of 14-year-old found dead in singer D4vd’s Tesla seeks death penaltynbclosangeles.com
- Family of Celeste Rivas Hernandez files wrongful death lawsuit against D4vdnbclosangeles.com
Revision history
- Version 231 Aug 2026, 20:15current
Added 'on' before 'Monday' to clarify the weekday reference. Added 'The case is at the charging stage in district court and has not been resolved.' to explicitly state the matter is undecided. Moved the charging stage sentence to the first paragraph for clarity. No other changes.
- Version 131 Aug 2026, 13:17current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.