Lil Durk’s defense has been handed a potentially important argument heading into closing statements in his federal murder-for-hire trial: paying for plane tickets, hotels and other expenses connected to an alleged murder plot is not, by itself, enough to establish that a bounty was offered for someone’s death.

U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald drew that distinction Friday as prosecutors and defense attorneys worked through the final jury instructions ahead of closing arguments scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 8.

The issue goes directly to one of the government’s central allegations against Durk, whose legal name is Durk Banks. Prosecutors contend that he financed and orchestrated a 2022 plot to kill rapper Quando Rondo, whose legal name is Tyquian Bowman, in retaliation for the death of Durk’s close friend King Von.

Throughout the trial, prosecutors have presented evidence involving flights, hotel rooms, phones, vehicles and other expenses allegedly used by members of the group who traveled to Southern California before Bowman was targeted.

But Judge Fitzgerald made clear that jurors cannot simply treat those expenses as the payment for the alleged murder itself.

“The jury is already told that, specifically, in unambiguous English language, that paying for those sorts of instrumentalities are not enough,” Fitzgerald said during the discussion over jury instructions. “It has to be a bounty beyond the actual fact of those things.”

That distinction gives Durk’s attorneys a straightforward point to emphasize when they make their final case to jurors Tuesday: paying for a trip is not necessarily the same thing as paying someone to commit a murder.

Why the Distinction Matters

The legal issue comes from a crucial element of the federal murder-for-hire charges.

For prosecutors to prove the alleged murder-for-hire arrangement, the government must establish the required connection between the intended killing and something of pecuniary value—a financial or economically valuable reward associated with carrying out the murder.

The government does not necessarily have to show that the promised reward was ultimately paid. But the alleged financial benefit must amount to more than simply covering the instrumental costs associated with carrying out the crime.

That became an important concern for Durk’s defense attorney Christy O’Connor as the parties discussed how jurors would be instructed.

O’Connor argued that jurors could potentially conclude Durk paid for travel or other expenses while still finding that those payments did not establish he offered a bounty for Bowman's killing.

Fitzgerald’s comments confirmed that the jury instructions already draw that distinction.

It does not mean the government’s financial evidence disappears from the case. Prosecutors can still argue that travel arrangements, hotel bookings, phones, vehicles and other purchases help establish the circumstances surrounding the alleged operation.

What they cannot do is rely on those expenses alone as the financial reward necessary to establish the alleged murder-for-hire agreement.

That difference could become especially important during closing arguments.

Prosecutors Have Followed the Money

The government has spent significant portions of the trial attempting to connect Durk financially to the men prosecutors say traveled to California to find Bowman.

According to prosecutors, members of the group flew to Southern California, obtained vehicles and equipment and tracked Bowman through Los Angeles before the Aug. 19, 2022 shooting near the Beverly Center.

Bowman survived.

His cousin, Saviay’a “Lul Pab” Robinson, was shot and killed.

Prosecutors allege the operation was retaliation for the November 2020 killing of King Von, whose legal name was Dayvon Bennett. Von was fatally shot during a confrontation involving members of Bowman’s entourage outside an Atlanta nightclub.

Durk has pleaded not guilty and denies ordering or financing a murder-for-hire plot.

The government’s case has included testimony from cooperating witnesses Kacey “OTF Jam” Hester, Kavon “OTF Vonni” Grant and Keith “Flacka” Jones, each of whom pleaded guilty before testifying for prosecutors.

Hester and Jones testified about an alleged cash reward connected to killing Bowman, while prosecutors have portrayed the financial records and travel arrangements as additional evidence supporting their broader theory.

Durk’s attorneys have aggressively challenged those witnesses’ credibility, pointing to their cooperation agreements and arguing they have powerful incentives to implicate Durk in hopes of receiving more favorable sentences.

The defense has instead attempted to place responsibility for organizing the operation on Grant, Durk’s former assistant.

Grant acknowledged during testimony that he had extensive access to Durk’s finances, including access to his wallet, PIN numbers, bank information and Social Security number. The defense has used that testimony to argue that a transaction involving Durk’s money or cards does not automatically establish that Durk personally authorized it.

The judge’s clarification about travel expenses now gives that defense strategy another layer.

Even if jurors believe Durk’s money paid for certain expenses, his attorneys can argue they still must separately decide whether prosecutors proved that Durk knowingly offered or promised a reward in exchange for Bowman's murder.

Another Legal Fight Emerges Before Closings

The bounty issue is not the only significant legal question being settled before jurors begin deliberating.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys have also been fighting over how the jury should apply the federal conspiracy principle commonly known as the Pinkerton doctrine.

Under that rule, a defendant who joins a conspiracy can potentially be held responsible for certain crimes committed by another conspirator if those crimes were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and were reasonably foreseeable.

Prosecutors have asked Fitzgerald to keep that theory available to jurors as they consider some of the charges against Durk and his co-defendants, Deandre “OTF Dede” Wilson and David “Browneyez” Lindsey.

The defense has challenged how broadly that principle should apply.

Those disputes underscore how the trial is shifting from testimony about what happened in 2022 toward a different question: exactly what prosecutors must prove before jurors can legally hold Durk responsible for it.

Everything Now Comes Down to the Jury

Both sides have rested their cases.

Durk’s defense called nine witnesses before resting, while Durk himself declined to testify. Wilson and Lindsey also chose not to take the stand.

Closing arguments are scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 8, when prosecutors will attempt to connect weeks of testimony, financial records, communications and cooperating-witness accounts into a single argument that Durk knowingly backed the alleged plot.

The defense will have its opportunity to argue the opposite: that prosecutors assembled a case around unreliable cooperating witnesses, financial transactions that do not prove Durk’s intent and actions that could have been taken by people with access to his resources.

Judge Fitzgerald’s clarification gives Durk’s lawyers a particularly simple way of framing one part of that argument.

Flights can get someone to California. Hotel rooms can give them somewhere to stay. Phones and vehicles can help them move and communicate.

But under the instructions jurors will receive, those expenses alone cannot establish the alleged bounty at the heart of the government’s murder-for-hire case.

When court resumes Tuesday, both sides will have their final opportunity to tell jurors what they believe the evidence proves.

After that, the case moves toward the people who will ultimately decide it.