Jury convicts Duane 'Keffe D' Davis of first-degree murder in 1996 Tupac Shakur killing
A Las Vegas jury found Duane 'Keffe D' Davis guilty of first-degree murder in the 1996 shooting death of Tupac Shakur, according to multiple reports.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 21, 2026, 10:40 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 21, 2026, 10:40 p.m. ETFirst report
Tupac Murder Trial: First Week Ends With Recorded Interviews, Courtroom Outburst
The murder trial of Duane 'Keffe D' Davis completed its first week, with jurors hearing recorded interviews and a courtroom outburst, according to ABC7.
The trial is a criminal case in district court and is currently at a contested stage, ABC7 reported.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
- Tupac murder trial: Defendant 'Keffe D' speaks in court, scolds prosecutorabc7.com
- Tupac Shakur murder trial: Prosecutors rest, putting Duane Davis' defense up nextabc7news.com
- Jury considers case against Duane "Keffe D" Davis in 1996 Las Vegas murder of Tupac Shakurnbclosangeles.com
- Jury reaches verdict in Tupac Shakur murder trial three decades after Las Vegas killingnbcbayarea.com
- Duane 'Keffe D' Davis found guilty in Tupac Shakur murder trialnbclosangeles.com
- Duane 'Keffe D' Davis found guilty in Tupac Shakur murder trialnbclosangeles.com
- Duane 'Keffe D' Davis found guilty in Tupac Shakur murder trialnbcwashington.com
- What to know about key evidence that led to Tupac Shakur murder trial convictionnbclosangeles.com
- 'Elated and relieved' family of Tupac Shakur releases statement after murder trial convictionnbclosangeles.com
Revision history
- Version 73 Sept 2026, 00:52current
Updated to reflect the conviction as reported by NBC outlets, while noting conflicting reports from ABC7 and ABC7 News that the trial was still ongoing.
- Version 62 Sept 2026, 02:16
Updated to reflect the conviction as reported by NBC outlets, while noting the conflicting reports from ABC outlets that the trial was still in progress.
- Version 52 Sept 2026, 00:42
Updated to reflect the conviction reported by NBC outlets, while noting conflicting reports from ABC outlets.
- Version 41 Sept 2026, 00:53
Removed the unsupported year '1996' from the first sentence, changing 'in the 1996 shooting' to 'in the shooting'.
- Version 31 Sept 2026, 00:22
Removed the unsupported year '1996' from the body. No other changes.
- Version 226 Aug 2026, 22:23
Updated to reflect prosecutors resting their case and added the allegation detail.
- Version 122 Aug 2026, 02:44
First published.
- Version 122 Aug 2026, 02:40current
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.