Lil Durk could see himself released from jail ahead of his murder for hire trial and it would all be because of his lyrics.
While the prosecution have sought to use Durk’s lyrics of evidence that he was behind the attempted murder of Quando Rondo, the controversial Chicago rapper is arguing that they prove the opposite.
Durk and his legal team have been seeking to dismiss the case against him and while that has not yet happened, they have been granted a hearing to review his detention status.
A judge has ruled that a hearing will be held on May 8 to determine if Durk can be released from jail ahead of trial.
AD LOADING...
Durk and his team have also offered the court a new bail package which includes $1 million in cash, $900,000 in real estate and a further $150,000 from an associate while he would also employ 24/7 security and submit to electronic monitoring.
Durk’s legal team are arguing that prosecutors misled the grand jury that indicted him about the facts of the case.
According to Durk’s attorneys, prosecutors’ claim that the rapper details the alleged attack on Babyface Ray‘s song “Wonderful Wayne & Jackie Boy” is wrong and that it was written months before the shooting took place.
The government’s misrepresentation in the Superseding Indictment, whether knowing or reckless, undermines the integrity of the grand jury’s true bill against Mr. Banks,” they argue in a new filing. “The Court should dismiss the Superseding Indictment against him as a result.”
AD LOADING...
In a separate filing asking for Durk to be released from jail ahead of trial, his lawyers claim that prosecutors have “attempted to hold Mr. Banks [Lil Durk] responsible for video clips that YouTubers and Instagram users have edited, produced, and posted to social media, but with whom Mr. Banks has no affiliation.”
The motion specifically mentions a fan-made video which “showing defendant’s [Lil Durk’s] rival [Quando Rondo] screaming, ‘No, no’ that was placed over these lyrics [from ‘Wonderful Wayne & Jackie Boy’],” which prosecutors then “speculated that perhaps [the song] could be a reference to some other uncharged murder.”
His legal team goes on to say: “It is unfair, misleading, and just flat-out wrong for the government to suggest that Mr. Banks is responsible for these video/audio edits or that they evidence his purported commercialization of a murder that he supposedly ordered.”
