Duane “Keefe D” Davis, accused in the 1996 murder of Tupac Shakur, seeks pre-trial release, citing health concerns and insufficient evidence linking him to the crime.
As reported by 8 News Now, Davis’s attorneys have filed a motion requesting his release on recognizance, proposing electronic monitoring via an ankle bracelet. They assert that Davis poses no threat to the community, is not a flight risk, and suggest bail not exceeding $100,000.
The legal filing highlights the prosecution’s reliance on Davis’s statements in his book, “Compton Street Legend,” and various interviews, arguing that no independent evidence links him to the shooting. Davis’s defense contends that these statements were for “entertainment purposes,” emphasizing their client’s lack of immunity belief.
In a surprising turn, Davis’s attorneys challenge the validity of his own statements, claiming they were not verified for truthfulness. Drawing a parallel to former LAPD detective Greg Kading, who investigated Tupac and The Notorious B.I.G.’s deaths, they argue that both engaged in interviews and book releases for financial gain.
Despite Davis’s not guilty plea to one count of murder with a deadly weapon, the defense underscores the lack of concrete evidence, dismissing other claims as an “astounding amount of hearsay.”
The attorneys emphasize that Davis’s interviews and book were undertaken for financial benefit and entertainment, aligning with Kading’s similar actions. They argue that both profited from situations already capitalized on by others.
A court hearing to address Davis’s release request is slated for January 2, where his defense aims to showcase the lack of substantial evidence and the purportedly benign nature of his interviews and book.
This legal saga intertwining Tupac’s murder and the subsequent investigations takes another intriguing turn as Keefe D’s defense challenges the credibility of his statements and draws parallels to other figures in the high-profile cases. The upcoming court hearing promises to shed light on the strength of the prosecution’s case against Davis and the weight given to statements made for both entertainment and financial purposes.