Lil Durk’s Case Was Supposed To Be Moving Forward… Until This Happened | Criminal Lawyer Reacts

Added: 2026-05-28

[00:00:00]Hey guys, Lisa Figaro here, board certified criminal defense attorney in Florida. Back to talk to you about Little Durk. Sort of DeAndre Wilson, codefendant of Little Durk. I happened to check the docket and I noticed that codefendant DeAndre Wilson had filed a motion for reconsideration and nothing new had happened in Durk's case, but DeAndre Wilson filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider their request for pre-trial release. Normally, they already did this. He's already been denied and that's why he's still in custody and it's been over 18 months.

[00:00:34]But there was an application. They filled out a motion saying they are looking for another hearing because there's new information, new evidence, new new information to be presented that wasn't considered the first time around.

[00:00:48]So, I was like, what new information is there? And then I looked and they filed like a 15page motion for reconsideration and it went through some reasons why they think that this codefendant should be released. Why? Because there's more charges coming. And now the trial can't go forward in August. The trial got moved back from April to August of this year. Everybody's thinking it's going to go to trial. They're ready to roll. And now this guy's attorney is saying, "Hey, we just found out that the prosecution, they had backed off on the whole Chicago incident and now they're going to bring it back."

[00:01:29]So, there's going to be all kinds of other things that need to be looked into. And it goes through the whole thing. I don't know if you guys want me to go through the whole thing, if we can do that on a different video, but I'll kind of go through the gist. And the gist is that they're claiming that Mr. Wilson, he was less like less guilty if if if any when the attorney does this motion, you're not agreeing. He actually has a blur where it's like we're not admitting to the facts, but for purposes of this, even if you take the government story about what happened, our guy is like the least culpable, the least blameworthy, the least involved. So, he should be able to get a bond. Why do I have to wait? Because these guys are going to and and they had filed a motion to sever to separate the trials and that was denied. So if the case now has become bigger against Durk or other codefendants, this poor guy is stuck being with those and that is now going to be delayed and he has to sit in there when he's the least guilty or least likely involved. Anyway, so that was part of the basis of why they're saying, "Hey, you should give my guy a bond and let him be out while this goes on because it's definitely gonna get moved." The other thing is they pointed out that he's spent 18 months already.

[00:02:46]So, it's been that long that these guys have been in custody. And then the attorney says the trajectory points to much longer, meaning it looks like this is going to take even longer. And that the government has informed defense council. So this guy is saying that the government, the prosecution, the prosecutors have alerted the defense that they are considering filing supplemental charges, more additional on June 3rd, 2026. June 3rd, that's right around the corner. They're about to file new charges. The new charges would add two alleged incidents as direct evidence, including conduct the government had affirmatively withdrawn from its case and chief three months ago. So they're saying 3 months ago the government said, "Oh, we're not going to talk about this." And now all of a sudden they're telling us they're bringing this back. Supplemental charges of that scope will not permit the August 20th trial date to hold. And then they believe that Mr. Wilson's pre-trial detention is going to become indefinite, meaning we don't know how long it could be. Um, now I don't know if it's going to be indefinite. Obviously, it just prolongs it, but it's not going to be forever. Um, and then third, Mr. Wilson offers a wholesome shity package demonstrating strong family support.

[00:04:00]Basically, he had three family members or three people that are willing to put up money and set up home detention situation. So, he's not going to go anywhere and he's going to show up for court and the safety of the community isn't a problem. And then it goes on and it reiterates a lot of the facts of the case. And it's funny because their whole argument is that if if this whole conspiracy happened, all of the members of the conspiracy are all locked up. So, judge, you don't have to worry about my guy because if he gets out, there's no one to conspire with because they're all in jail. So, let my client out. Um, which is a decent argument and point.

[00:04:39]Will it work? I don't know. It summarizes basically the facts that on May 1st, 2025, the government filed a superseding a second superseding indictment. The government in federal cases, they file an indictment and then they can do a superseding meaning it goes on top of it's almost amended or ads or tweaks. And so the one that they are facing is whatever the most recent indictment or superseding indictment is, it goes above. Um so they charge Mr. Wilson and five codefendants with conspiracy and aiding and abetting uh murder for hire all of that right in February 2026 the government withdrew their 404B evidence meaning prior bad acts or wrongful acts that happened that are similar or similar fact evidence um concerning the 2022 Chicago incident at a hearing they had um back in February.

[00:05:34]So the government was going to use this whole thing that went down in Chicago and then they said never mind. Now on May 13th of 2026, so just a couple weeks ago, the government informed Defense Council that it's considering seeking supplemental charges that would charge the Chicago 2022 incident and an incident from Atlanta in 2019 as direct evidence in this case. Man, that is kind of pushing it, right? It's awfully what I would call legally stale information. I mean, it's old. How are they going to link it up? Maybe, but man, um I'm not sure. I'm not sure how they're going to tie it together. And then why now? Good question. On February 26th, the court denied Mr. Wilson's motion to sever. So, you know, all the trials are going to go together. And the court observed back when they did the severance motion that it was considerably stronger before they withdrew the Chicago incident. The government has now signaled its intention to bring both the Chicago incident and a previously unproposed Atlanta 2019 incident into this case as direct evidence. Neither involves Mr. Wilson. So that's their whole point.

[00:06:47]This whole thing in Chicago, the whole thing in Atlanta 2019 has nothing to do with Mr. Wilson. And then it just goes through the general bond hearing language about what the government has to establish in order to hold somebody without bail. And it goes through it depends on the nature and circumstances of the case, the weight of the evidence against the person, their history and characteristics, and then the nature and seriousness of any danger to persons in the community. and they're saying that there's not enough evidence here to hold him. So, I'm gonna I'm gonna jump to this section because this is the only one that really kind of breaks down the meat of some of the backstory if you hadn't heard it. The defense attorney in this motion points out to the court that think about what the indictment doesn't allege. The government does not claim that Mr. Wilson, again, this is this particular codefendant, um he's not the one that placed the bounty. He didn't coordinate the murder. He didn't procure any firearm like he didn't go get a firearm, a rental car, ski mask, or hotel room. He wasn't involved in that part. He didn't drive any vehicle involved in the shooting. Um they didn't allege that he rode in the shooting vehicle or that he dawned a mask, that he fired any weapon, that he participated in the shooting itself, or that he was present when shots were fired or paid a bounty. So none of those things, all of those things they're saying somebody else did, but not this guy. So what they do allege is far more limited when it comes to Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson was told allegedly in coded language about a bounty, recruited others, so they're saying he recruited others to travel to California and texted their biographical information so that flights could be booked. flew from Chicago to San Diego, traveled by car toward LA, traveled to a hotel where TB was staying. He followed and was a passenger in the white BMW that tracked TB's black Escalade. He traveled to a hamburger restaurant after the shooting and flew back to Chicago.

[00:09:00]In some recruitment of two participants, forwarding their identifying information and presence as a passenger in a vehicle, Mr. Wilson is the only charged defendant whose alleged conduct doesn't involve ordering, financing, supplying, driving, or executing the shooting.

[00:09:18]So, if you're going to represent anyone here, this is probably the best codefendant to have on those allegations. Then, they point out the biggest thing here is that the change, and I think there's been other videos talking about this, that the government's charging history initially since Mr. Wilson was originally detained. They first in the first superseding indictment, the main allegation against Mr. Wilson was that at the direction of defendant bank. So Durk directed this person he would pay the bounty or monetary reward and or cause payment to be made for the killing of SR on behalf of the conspirators um known and unknown to hire to the conspirators hired to kill TB. So basically he was the one that was paying the bounty or ordered to pay the bounty and all of that and that has totally been removed from the allegations. Now the only remaining payment allegation is the general statement that co-conspirators known and unknown including Banks and Wilson would pay anyone who took part in the killing of TB. They don't allege that Mr. Wilson paid anyone. And so this narrowing of the allegation, according to the defense attorney, is material and that the detention order, like previously when the court denied pre-trial release, it rested on the fact that the government was alleging that this guy actually said or they had evidence that this person would pay the bounty for killing SR and now that language is not in this current indictment. So, the government has narrowed or shifted or lessened what they're accusing this guy's role was.

[00:11:12]And that goes directly to the danger and seriousness of his um of his part, which is one of the factors they have to consider for re pre-trial release. And um they also highlight the fact that the government doesn't say that Mr. Wilson, this guy is any part of an ongoing pattern of violence, which I think that with the other incidents, they're claiming that Durk and these other people are in this ongoing pattern of violence. They're saying, "Hey, this guy is not part of all of that and that he's been removed. He is removed from any of alleged um any of that alleged ongoing activity." They also point out that this guy, there's no allegation of any violent conduct by Mr. Wilson. um and that everybody is in federal custody. So there's no operational organization for him to rejoin if he gets out.

[00:12:09]And that's it. And then it basically just goes back through all the different factors and puts forth what family members are willing to put up money and what conditions they can restrict him from traveling. And he won't have any contact with any codefendants or any alleged victims. Won't possess any firearms. all the standard language stuff and that he'll reside in whatever district. They're saying that he can be monitored or transferred to the northern district of Illinois, which is where they're from, right? And so it's interesting. So through this other codefendant's request for a bond or a modification or reconsideration of his pre-trial detention, we find out that there are new possible charges coming that have upped the game, changed the game of what Durk and the other codefendants are facing. and guarantees that this upcoming August trial date is going to get moved. Haven't heard anything yet from Durk's attorney.

[00:13:05]Nothing new has been filed or shifted in that case, but this gives us a heads up of what's coming. And I expect that after June 3rd, more is going to come out and we'll see what could be new.

[00:13:18]What's up with this Atlanta 2019 incident and now the Chicago incident?

[00:13:23]And should old information of these old incidents be used against them in this case? How are they going to tie it together? We'll just have to see. So, make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, and we'll be back with an update as soon as we have one. Thanks for watching. Take care.

[00:13:44]Heat.