D4vd's Defense Could Clear Him of Vile Murder Charges

Added: 2026-05-15

[00:00:00]What can we expect from [music] the David defense team? How will they challenge the prosecution's evidence?

[00:00:06]What will be the defense for the serious charges of murder and sexual abuse and mutilation of human remains when it comes to the death of 14-year-old [music] Celeste Davis Hernandez? He is represented by a very high-powered attorney. What can we expect? Let's talk about it. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law & Crime.

[00:00:24]>> [music] >> I'm Jesse Weber.

[00:00:28]Something we haven't yet explored [music] in depth, we talked about a little bit, want to do a full episode on it, is the potential defenses in the David case.

[00:00:37]What are his defenses to the crimes that he's charged with? In other words, how can his defense attorney, Blair Berk, challenge the potential evidence against him? And to be clear, too, I don't know for sure what's going to be argued. I don't have like a crystal ball. I don't have an insight. I'm not friends with Blair Berk. But, this is at least what I speculate may be going on. This is what I know I'm going to be looking out for as this case progresses. And just to give you an idea about where we are right now. So, the 21-year-old Romantic Homicide singer, real name David Anthony Berk, is facing charges of first-degree murder, continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14, and unlawful mutilation of human remains, all in connection with the tragic, brutal death of 14-year-old Celeste Revis Hernandez, whose decomposed, dismembered body was found in a Tesla out in Los Angeles back on September 8th of last year. A Tesla reportedly registered to David, the singer out in Texas. And remember, his family lives there, too. And prosecutors have alleged special circumstances with respect to the murder charge. The reason that's significant is because that's what gets you the elevated penalty, life in prison without the possibility of parole, potentially the death penalty, even though prosecutors haven't announced that they're going forward with the death penalty, and even though there's a moratorium on executions out in California. But, what are the special circumstances allegations? What is this?

[00:01:53]Murder of a witness, murder for financial gain, lying in wait. They talk about using a deadly and dangerous weapon, a sharp instrument. Medical Examiner's office concluded that Celeste's cause of death was multiple penetrating injuries that David allegedly murdered Celeste to keep her quiet. That they were in this alleged illegal sexual relationship, remember her being a minor. That they have what they claim are text messages from the night before she died or allegedly died.

[00:02:22]They say April 23rd is when she was killed. That show they were fighting, that she was going to expose him, that she was going to ruin his financially lucrative career, and that he murdered her. Prosecutors claim that on April 23rd, 2025, he lured Celeste to his home, stabbed her repeatedly, watched her bleed out, and then proceeded to order all these supplies online to engage in the dismemberment of her body and the cover-up of the alleged crime.

[00:02:48]Chainsaws, body bag, laundry bags, inflatable pool. They claim a combination of surveillance footage, cellular data, DNA evidence, witness testimony all tie him to these alleged crimes. And right now, as we reported yesterday, his preliminary hearing has been moved to the end of June. It has been delayed once again so the defense has more time to analyze the evidence, prepare their arguments at a preliminary hearing, and by all accounts, they're going to continue to get this evidence as it comes in from the prosecution. So, we go back to the main focus here, right? What are David's defenses? And yes, he is innocent until proven guilty.

[00:03:20]These are just allegations. And also be clear, I am not even saying that we're going to see these defenses at a preliminary hearing per se. This is going to be more about what we can expect at trial. Because here's the truth. I spoke to attorney Alexander Kazarian last night on my NewsNation show, Jesse Weber Live, and the preliminary hearing is just for the defendant, she said, and I think it's a really good point, to strategize, to test, to see a sampling of what the prosecution's evidence is, start challenging their witnesses, start coming up with a defense. Because, look, here's the deal. Preliminary hearing, by all accounts, given what we've seen so far, and if we assume the prosecution has this kind of evidence that they claim they have in their pretrial brief, the court is probably going to say there's sufficient evidence to move forward with this case. Because the prosecution doesn't even have to present all of their evidence at prelim, just the minimum necessary to establish probable cause that David committed these crimes. Sufficient evidence for the case to move forward to trial.

[00:04:18]That's a very low bar. So, I don't think David is going to go into that preliminary hearing, currently scheduled for the end of June, thinking, "Yeah, I'm going to get the case thrown out."

[00:04:26]But, remember, this is just all what the prosecution claims they have, but I think it's going to be a test. So, when I talk about the defenses, the actual substantive defenses, I think you see this more after the preliminary hearing. Just one more thing about that. Yeah, again, what you hear from the prosecution are allegations.

[00:04:44]This is what they claim they have. We will see. But, again, let's talk about the defense. That's what I want to get into. And even before I get into the defense, who's his attorney? Blair Berk.

[00:04:56]I talked so much about her. So, she is a renowned attorney in Los Angeles.

[00:05:01]Harvard educated, very well experienced, reportedly an attorney to the stars. For example, represented Mel Gibson during his 2006 DUI arrest, 2011 in connection with the domestic abuse episode, represented Lindsay Lohan through a drug and DUI case in 2007, represented Harvey Weinstein in 2017 on sex abuse case, represented Britney Spears, Kanye West, reportedly Leonardo DiCaprio, Channing Tatum, Johnny Depp. In fact, before we even get to the actual defenses and that whole discussion, give you a sampling.

[00:05:31]Here is Blair Berk in court representing David in one of his initial appearances.

[00:05:36]From the media reports, uh apparently there's been 4 months of secret grand jury proceedings. We believe that Mr. Berk is entitled at the earliest opportunity to an open preliminary hearing and the proceedings not be done in secret. So, we are asking for a preliminary hearing to be set at the earliest possible date on the 10th day.

[00:06:01]Your Honor, uh We believe the actual evidence will show David Burke did not murder Celeste Vivas Hernandez nor was he the cause of her death. And we would like to be able to have the evidence come into the light of day at the earliest opportunity in order to establish that.

[00:06:23]We're asking for April 23rd as a three of 10, Your Honor. Okay. So, let's get into the possible defenses. And I want to start with the big one. Cause of death and manner of death. You just heard a little bit right there in that clip, right? This is what the prosecution is relying on. If you go back to the autopsy report, if you go back to the ME's findings, this ME report, this summary. Quote, "Death was pronounced at the scene. Autopsy examination was limited by extensive postmortem changes." Keep that in mind.

[00:06:51]"There are two penetrating wounds of the torso with smooth edges that may represent sharp force injuries."

[00:06:58]"The wound on the upper abdomen penetrates the liver and the wound on the left chest penetrates one of the left intercostal spaces with disruption of the adjacent ribs cortical surfaces.

[00:07:08]The left lung appears intact. The bilateral upper and lower extremities show full thickness dismemberment.

[00:07:13]Multiple other skin and soft tissue defects are present without apparent associated internal injuries. The etiology of these defects is not clearly apparent due to severe postmortem changes. Postmortem toxicology performed on liver tissue shows the presence of a low level of ethanol, which may be due to postmortem changes or ingestion and does not appear to be contributory to the cause of death. Given the history and circumstances as currently known by me in the setting of the the by examination, ancillary studies, and in the absence of other definitive causes of death, the cause of death is multiple penetrating injuries, the manner of death is classified as homicide. And by the way, manner of death could be, you know, homicide, suicide, accident, natural causes. If you ask me, what is the defense going to do? Challenge that.

[00:08:01]They're going to challenge, in my view, the cause of death, maybe the manner of death by highlighting there is a severe level of decomposition and dismemberment. How can you know for sure what killed Celeste given the state of her remains? I mean, the report itself at times notes how the examination was affected by the condition of this 14-year-old's body. I don't want to say it. I hate saying this, but that's the that's what we're dealing with. I mean, her mutilated remains. I mean, you just heard what Blair Burke said in court, and it echoes a statement that originally came out when David was arrested, that the evidence will show he didn't murder Celeste and not the cause of her death. Now, I actually asked forensic death investigator, the host of the Body Bags podcast, Joseph Scott Morgan, about this. Take a listen. I think that the one thing about it is you're going to have to have a forensic pathologist that has a very strong background, most do, all right, in decomposed bodies. But, you're going to have to have a defense pathologist that can at least insert that seed for reasonable doubt relative to the level of decomposition.

[00:09:03]I think that that's really the only intellectual underpinning that you have, you know, if you're trying to make that argument that you guys do in court, right?

[00:09:13]Um that's where you're going to go.

[00:09:14]They're going to have to lean into the decomposition. I know that sounds so bizarre, but for me, there's so much other evidence, digital evidence, circumstantial evidence, um testimonial stuff that's going on, you know, in addition to the physical evidence that they have.

[00:09:33]This is a mountain. I mean, it's [clears throat] a mountain. I I've seen you know cases with much less forensic evidence uh that have not gone well for the defendant.

[00:09:45]Decomposition though is going to be the big factor here, I think, and you're going to hear a lot about it. Also talk about liquefaction, which is something we haven't really, you know, heard before um in this case um how the remains are partially liquefied.

[00:10:00]And that's going to be a place where I think the defense, I'm always thinking about what the defense could do. They can step in and say, "Well, you're saying the body is partially liquefied.

[00:10:08]How can you actually identify, you know, these insults, these injuries?" So, yeah. Battle of the experts on official findings. We see this all the time in so many cases. Two different perspectives on what was the cause of someone's death, what the manner of death was. Is it undetermined? This is a case you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You show a little bit of confusion there, a little bit of doubt, that might give the jury some pause. And then it becomes a question for the jury. Who do you think is more credible? Who do you believe, jury? Now, I don't know if they could create the narrative that he didn't kill Celeste, but rather she died from an accident. Could she have died from an overdose? I mean, maybe tough given the alleged injuries and that while she may have had alcohol in her system, it didn't contribute to her death unless there's a forensic pathologist that disagrees. So, could that be challenged? You know, in the report they talk about that she tested presumptive positive for benzodiazepines and methamphetamines and MDMA on the initial drug screening, but the methamphetamine and these opioids, they were quote inconclusive due to interfering substance or substances on the second drug screening. So, you know, it's a little confusion there. Again, I wonder a combination of cross-examining the prosecution's medical examiner or pathologist about their findings, questioning them about their history, their credibility, the complications of Celeste's body. Could this be a way to raise reasonable doubt? Maybe. Unless I'm wrong, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think they have a definitive murder weapon. And that would help a prosecution's case for sure. A way to tie a particular weapon and instrument to the defendant. DNA, location, things like that.

[00:11:42]Fingerprints. So, if they don't have a definitive murder weapon, how do you know what was used and by whom? Is that reasonable doubt? And this goes to a larger issue and I do wonder this and I've said this before, but I want to highlight it a little bit more. It goes to this issue of will the defense have trouble arguing away certain things and just have to admit other things. That's a long conversation they have to have with their client once they get a better sense of what all the evidence is. And again, let me be clear, he's innocent until proven guilty. But here's the issue that I see. I go back to what was said in the prosecution's pre-trial brief. And I'm just going to assume for a moment all of this is true and they have all this. Quote, "Tellingly, defendant subsequently purchased tools to carry out his plot to dismember and dispose of the victim's body. On April 24th, 2025, defendant ordered a shovel from Home Depot that was delivered home from Postmates. On May 1st, 2025, defendant ordered and subsequently Amazon delivered two chainsaws to his home. On May 5th, 2025, defendant ordered and Amazon subsequently delivered a body bag, heavy-duty laundry bags, and a blue inflatable pool to his home. He made these purchases under the fake name Victoria Mendez. On May 8th, 2025, defendant returned to the same area in Santa Barbara County leaving his home around 11:30 p.m. He returned to the area again on May 31st, 2025. This is an isolated site off SR 154 where the victim's identification was subsequently discovered in January 2026.

[00:13:09]Additionally, on July 7th, 2025, defendant ordered and subsequently Amazon delivered a burn cage to his home under the same fake name as part of his plan to incinerate evidence. That's tricky for the defense. Do they say, "Well, look, I don't know how we can argue against those purchases at those times?" I mean, yeah, I guess they could say, "How do you know for sure David was the one who made those purchases?" Do they look at other potentially strange purchases he's made over the years? Do they say, "Hey, this was for other purposes, a music video." Strange timing of that, right? Considering if they say she was killed April 23rd and then all of these very specific items are ordered and delivered. And again, they say that she arrived at his place April 23rd, that she's killed shortly after she arrives, there's no more cell phone use by her after that, and then he buys all this stuff. Or do they admit it? Do they say, "Yeah, he bought this stuff. And yes, he bought this stuff to get rid of Celeste's body." That we will even admit this, again, from the prosecution's brief. "Moreover, defendant took horrifying measures to destroy and discard the victim's body. After placing her body into the blue inflatable pool to prevent her blood from spilling onto his garage floor, defendant used a chainsaw and perhaps other tools to cut off her limbs. Small blue plastic fragments were found embedded in the victim's remains, which were collected by the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Department. The fragments were analyzed by the LAPD's Forensic Science Division Trace Analysis Unit. An expert was able to make a physical fit match from the blue fragments to the blue inflatable pool purchased by defendant in May 2025. In order to distance himself from the victim, he amputated her left ring and pinky fingers because her ring finger contained a tattoo of his name. Her fingers have not been recovered.

[00:14:45]Defendant then placed her head and torso into the cadaver bag that he purchased.

[00:14:49]He placed her limbs into a garbage bag, which he deposited into his front trunk, laying the cadaver bag on top. For several weeks or possibly months, defendant left the victim's body to decompose inside his Tesla." And the list of potential evidence they say, "DNA evidence developed from blood stains collected from defendant's garage, which match the victim's genetic profile, proof of defendant's Amazon purchases and deliveries to his residence, including two chainsaws, a body bag, an inflatable pool, heavy-duty laundry bags, and a burn cage after April 24th, 2025." And by the way, private have Steve Fisher, who's been on top of this case. He shared photos of some of those alleged packages and you can see the deliveries are addressed to Victoria Mendez. So it's again unclear why David would allegedly use that particular name. But again, does he choose to admit all this? That could be very hard to argue against particularly if they can match these items that were with Celeste's body to the ones that were actually purchased. Right? It's not like he just bought, you know, an inflatable pool or bought these bags and the ones that are associated with her remains are completely different. But does he admit all this? Quote, "Proof of defendant's purchase and delivery from Postmates of a shovel from Home Depot to his home on April 24th. Uber records showing defendant's transaction where he ordered an Uber to pick up the victim from her Lake Elsinore home and transport her to his residence the night of April 23rd, 2025." When LAPD served the search warrant at the home that David was renting after Celeste was identified, they reportedly found all sorts of evidence in the garage. I said this, right? The biological testing. But there's also the inflatable pool which reportedly had multiple linear cuts. So does he admit all this? Does he not fight it? Instead, do his defense attorney say, "Yep, he purchased this stuff after prosecutors claim she died, but it doesn't mean that he's responsible for her death. That maybe she died in another way and that he panicked and that he tried to cover this up and that he was just part of her disposal or helped with the disposal."

[00:16:40]I've seen cases like that before.

[00:16:42]Different circumstances. James Scandirito though, Florida, found not guilty of the murder of his father but guilty in connection with the dismemberment. Took the stand, explained it. It was a disgusting story but the jury believed it. So in other words, will we ever really know what happened to her? And again, if they can show that her body was too decomposed, dismembered to know exactly what the cause of death is, they admit to him panicking, that she died, they come up with a narrative about how she died or the circumstances regarding her death, and he panicked and just got rid of her body. I mean, if he did that, he'd be found guilty of that unless he pleads guilty to that, you're looking at prison time.

[00:17:17]I will also say that defense attorneys will find any way to find chain of custody issues and contamination of evidence in any case. So, just taking a step back, they may not admit to any of this. They may say there's problems in how all of this evidence was collected and processed. Any opening to say the forensic findings are not accurate like the DNA or the pool fragments that it again wasn't handled or processed correctly. That's common. We see that almost in every case. So, that's putting law enforcement under the hot lamp during cross-examination questioning the findings. But, if you can show the jury that the official findings might be tainted, that they're not accurate, that is key. Now, I don't know if that's the case here, but calling out something to look out for.

[00:17:57]And while I'm laying out what we can expect to see, again, I think there could be a real argument and strategy is, you know, look, the mutilation charge is what it is. And there are other areas to chip away at too if we're talking about reasonable doubt, other places for reasonable doubt because according to the prosecution's brief, they say surveillance video and other evidence confirmed defendant was the last person to drive the vehicle on July 29th, 2025 before he left Los Angeles on a concert tour. Okay. Now, the defense's natural question could be, "Sure, but did anyone else move it after that? How do you know?" Her body wasn't reportedly found until September in that car. Who else had access to that car at that time? Who else could have had access potentially to Celeste's remains? I mean, the filing states that David lied to friends, business associates, and others about the strong smell of decay in and around the home and the car. The defense will very much cross-examine those witnesses about it. Question those conversations. Question what David really said or didn't say. Raise hearsay objections. And another way to look at it is it could be very difficult for defense attorneys to say that he was completely in the dark and had no idea what was happening. Although, is it possible someone else is involved, had access to the car? And if you do that, that changes the story. It goes to this idea of who may be a cooperating witness as well. And if someone took an immunity deal to testify against David, That is prime ground for attack by defense under cross-examination. Why do you need protection? Were you offered protection?

[00:19:19]Were you promised something just to point the finger at my client, this big star? Law enforcement had tunnel vision, they needed to make an arrest, they went after the shiniest object, they went after David. Are you really responsible?

[00:19:31]Now look, I'm speculating, I don't know if that's where they're going to go.

[00:19:34]Again, I'm thinking of things that might happen. I'm just giving you things to be on the lookout for. I got to go to something else though. Go back to the brief. Quote, "At approximately 8:40 p.m. on April 23rd, 2025, defendant sent an Uber to transport the victim from a Lake Elsinore home to his residence.

[00:19:48]They communicated before and during her Uber ride, which dropped her off at defendant's Hollywood Hills home around 10:10 p.m. At approximately 10:30 p.m., defendant sent text messages to the victim inquiring where she was. The people contend this was part of defendant's premeditated plan to cover up the murder as she was already dead by this time. The Uber records, the receipts, they may be very hard to dispute. Unless the defense can show that she wasn't in the car, but that part about asking where she was, right?

[00:20:16]That alleged message that he texts her that, prosecutors will say, "Yeah, shows he killed her and then immediately comes up with this alibi plan or he knew he was going to do it beforehand, this premeditated plan was luring her there."

[00:20:27]Or, and this is again something that Steve Fisher, the PI, focused on, is it possible she did wander off, he didn't know where she was, and she wasn't killed at that time in the home? Quote, "Knowing he had to silence the victim before she ruined his music career as she had threatened very soon after her arrival at his home, defendant stabbed the victim to death multiple times and stood by while she bled out. At no time did he call law enforcement or 911 or take her to an emergency room to attempt to save her life." The defense will naturally ask, "Is the prosecution speculating on a lot of this? How do they know all this? How do they know that he watched her bleed out? Is there surveillance footage in the house? Is there a witness?" Joseph Scott Morgan speculated on that possibility. How do we know that he killed her in that 20-minute time frame? Does the prosecution say, "Well, look at her arrival, look at the injuries. David doesn't call 911. So, yeah, we know he killed her like that in the house."

[00:21:16]Although, I will also say I haven't seen anything about a massive clean-up or about luminol. So, for the alleged murder and dismemberment of this girl, would you expect to see more about that?

[00:21:27]Is there a defense opening there? Is there room to say the prosecution is leaving out details and those details are reasonable doubt. Go back to the brief. Quote, "Despite knowing she was dead and her family was trying to find her, the evidence will show defendant lied and claimed he didn't know where she was. In fact, defendant drove to Santa Barbara County immediately after the victim died attempting to dispose of her property and destroy evidence at approximately 11:30 p.m. on April 23rd, 2025, he drove away from his home as he texted and called the victim's phone asking where she was. Again, these were acts calculated and planned to set up his defense within a very short timeline after the victim's vicious murder.

[00:22:02]Defendant drove his Tesla north on the 101 freeway to Santa Marcos Pass Road, SR 154, near Lake Cachuma in Santa Barbara County. He returned home early the following morning on April 24th, 2025 before going to a radio interview for the release of his album that week.

[00:22:16]He sent two additional texts to the victim's phone that day, which obviously went unanswered because she was already dead. After April 26th, 2025, defendant never attempted to contact her again.

[00:22:26]Defendant's cellular activity and communications derived from defendant's iPhone and Tesla, which demonstrate defendant's activities from April 22nd to April 24th, including a trip to Santa Barbara County in the middle of the night after the victim arrived at his Hollywood Hills home. It's questionable.

[00:22:38]It's hard to argue against that digital evidence. But, Steve again wondered, is it possible that the killing had happened there in Santa Barbara? You go back to that text message. So, if the defense can poke holes in that and say, "Look, the prosecution's narrative is not even correct. They're assuming too much and they're showing this idea of doubt about the prosecution's conclusion, their theory of the case."

[00:22:58]Does that raise reasonable doubt for the jury? Again, does all this show him disposing of Celeste's remains, but not necessarily murdering her. I'm speculating, just something to think about. As an aside, I don't know if Blair Berk's his defense team are going to do this, but as you know, it has been speculated that there is a divide in authorities here. So, I do wonder if the defense is going to point to messaging about, "Hey, law enforcement, didn't you say originally there may not be a crime beyond concealment of the body? Why did the LAPD petition the court to seal the ME's findings, which the ME was not happy about, by the way?" Yeah, sure, LAPD made the statement that this is a way to preserve the integrity of the investigation to make sure nothing comes out to the media or the family beforehand, but the ME quote, "After several months, I'm grateful this information can now be released, not only to the public, but also to the grieving family enduring loss. It is unfathomable that they have had to wait this long to learn what happened to their daughter. The transparency of the information contained in our findings and reports is essential for empowering the community to make informed changes to reduce fear effectively and allowing the community to take informed action." This was the statement after the ME's findings were recently released. But, remember back in the day when it was sealed, Dr. Akpob said the department's "mission is to have full transparency with the community by providing information about our cases to empower people to make changes that save lives. Since becoming the department head, I've worked on eradicating the practice of placing security holds on medical examiner cases simply by law enforcement request. The practice of security holds is virtually unheard of in other counties and has not been proven to improve outcomes in the legal system. We are dedicated to serving our community with full transparency. However, the law precludes us from doing so while the court order remains in this case." And so, will the defense bring up questions about what's going on here? Why is there a disagreement? What took authorities so long to charge him? We also had questions about why grand juries were reportedly impaneled and there was no indictment. Were they just investigative grand juries? I'm not sure sure defense can legally explore all that at trial, but any opening to suggest questions about charging David or who took the lead or was there a disagreement, that's going to be explored by the defense. I'm sure to the extent that they can because I wonder if that could raise reasonable doubt. Now, to be clear, when I interviewed Nathan Hochman on my NewsNation show, he said that they're in lockstep. There was nothing like that. I also want to be on the lookout for something else. How do you defend against the sex charge? And I looked it up. Any person who either resides in the same home with the minor child or has recurring access to the child who over a period of time not less than 3 months in duration engages in three or more acts of substantial sexual conduct with a child under the age of 14 years at the time of the commission of the offense or three or more acts of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 years at the time of the commission of the offense is guilty of the offense [clears throat] of continuous sexual abuse of a child and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 6, 12, or 16 years. So, you go back to the evidence list, right? In this brief, this is what the prosecution claims they have. They say, "The description of photographs depicting the victim naked as well as while she was engaged with defendant in sexual activity when she was 13. As this evidence constitutes child sexual abuse material, CSAM, the photographs themselves will not be presented while all possible charges that could be proven were not filed. The CSAM is proof of their ongoing sexual relationship while the victim was 13 and 14 years old. Numerous text messages between defendant and the victim evidencing their sexual relationship, pregnancy, abortion, use of Plan B emergency contraception, messages through March 2025 prove defendant continued to manipulate the victim as she messaged, "All we do is have sex and just hang out. Man, I want more than that for myself." These messages were obtained from defendant's iCloud data.

[00:26:40]It's bad. That looks really, really bad if they have that. But, could the defense say, "How do we know for sure they were engaging in sexual activity, particularly when she was that age or the time frame of when this happened.

[00:26:54]Are there other statements like this? I mean, was it continuous? The images Remember, he's not being charged with possession, although I will tell you I did a whole sidebar episode on potential federal charges he could face with respect to this. But, I guess the argument from the defense is, yeah, these images are being used as proof of a sexual relationship, but what exactly are these photos? What do they show?

[00:27:14]What do they not show? How did he get them? Were they sent to him? Did he view them? Do we know who took them? Is he in them? Look, I'm going to take the prosecution's word for what it is right now. If this is what they have, again, these are allegations, it's not good for this charge. I mean, stretching a little bit on how they can challenge it could be tough. I think the age is not really in dispute. Consent doesn't matter. So, it is going to be a matter, an issue of saying, does it really fit within the specific elements of this charge? And it's going to have to be, this didn't happen. So, some defenses to think about for now. We will do a follow-up once we have a better idea of where the defense is going, but you get a sense. That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us, and as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast.

[00:28:02]You can also check us out on NBC's [music] Peacock, as well. If you want to follow me, X, Instagram, my NewsNation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday [music] through Friday, 11:00 p.m. Eastern. See you next time, everybody.