Lil Durk has been cleared of every charge in his federal murder-for-hire trial, handing the Grammy-winning Chicago rapper and his high-powered defense team a sweeping victory after weeks of testimony in Los Angeles.

A federal jury found Durk, whose legal name is Durk Banks, not guilty on all five counts Friday, Sept. 11, after three days of deliberations. The charges included conspiracy to commit stalking, stalking using a dangerous weapon, stalking resulting in death and two murder-for-hire-related offenses.

The verdict represented a complete rejection of the criminal charges against Durk in a case where prosecutors accused him of financing a deadly revenge plot against Atlanta rapper Quando Rondo.

For Durk's attorneys, including Drew Findling, Brian Steel and Marissa Goldberg, the result came after a defense strategy built around a straightforward argument: a deadly plot existed, but the government had charged the wrong man.

Defense Put the Government's Witnesses on Trial

Throughout the case, Durk's attorneys aggressively challenged the prosecution's evidence and the credibility of the cooperating witnesses who testified against him.

The government alleged Durk became consumed with revenge following the November 2020 killing of his close friend King Von, whose legal name was Dayvon Bennett.

Prosecutors claimed Durk subsequently used his money and influence to arrange a hit targeting Quando Rondo, born Tyquian Bowman. On Aug. 19, 2022, gunmen opened fire on Bowman and his cousin Saviay’a “Lul Pab” Robinson near the Beverly Center in Los Angeles.

Bowman survived. Robinson, 24, was killed.

Durk was never accused of personally carrying out the shooting. Instead, prosecutors attempted to prove that he was the person behind the operation, alleging that he provided the financial resources and authority that allowed others to execute the plot.

The defense spent the trial attacking that theory.

Rather than denying that a revenge plot existed, Durk's attorneys argued that his former personal assistant, Kavon Grant, was responsible for organizing it without Durk's knowledge.

Goldberg told jurors during opening statements that Grant booked hotels, secured vehicles and purchased ski masks before the shooting.

“Mr. Banks had nothing to do with it,” Goldberg told the jury. “He was not there, he was not connected to it.”

Drew Findling Called Grant a ‘Master of Deception’

By closing arguments, the defense's focus on Grant became even sharper.

Findling portrayed Durk's former assistant as a “master of deception” and argued that Grant had manipulated investigators after becoming a cooperating witness.

Findling told jurors that Grant had manipulated people involved in the case as well as the FBI and LAPD, before urging the jury not to allow itself to be manipulated by his testimony.

Brian Steel similarly attacked the government's cooperating witnesses, arguing that people facing potentially severe federal punishment had reasons to provide prosecutors with testimony that could improve their own situations.

Two admitted participants in the shooting, Kacey “OTF Jam” Hester and Keith Jones, testified for the government. Grant also testified against his former boss.

The defense argued that Grant had access to Durk's resources and was capable of arranging the Los Angeles operation without Durk ordering it.

Prosecutors strongly rejected that explanation.

During closing arguments, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ian Yanniello told jurors that Durk had his “shooters on speed dial” and argued that the operation did not make sense without Durk's leadership.

In rebuttal, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Morse accused Durk of attempting to blame his own team after the fact.

The jury ultimately found the government had not proved Durk guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Five Charges. Five Not-Guilty Verdicts.

Durk appeared emotional as the verdicts were announced inside the packed federal courtroom.

As the clerk read the findings count by count, Durk kept his head down. After the second not-guilty verdict was announced, he began wiping away tears.

His wife, India Royale, put her arm around Durk's mother, LaShawnda Woodard, who was also crying.

The jury eventually returned not-guilty verdicts on every charge Durk faced.

The outcome was different for co-defendants David Lindsey and Deandre Wilson. Both were acquitted of the murder-for-hire charges but convicted of conspiracy to commit stalking, stalking using a dangerous weapon and stalking resulting in death.

That distinction is significant.

Jurors did not conclude that no criminal activity occurred surrounding the 2022 shooting. Instead, they determined that the government had not met its burden of proving Durk personally guilty of the charges brought against him.

‘The Shackles Must Come Off’

Findling emerged from the courthouse following the verdict and addressed the crowd of supporters gathered outside.

His attention immediately shifted toward getting Durk out of custody.

“And now we work to ... pull the shackles off,” Findling told the crowd. “The shackles must come off and he must walk free, so he can come home to his beautiful family and to the world that loves him.”

That battle isn't over.

Despite being acquitted of all five charges in the murder-for-hire prosecution, Durk remained in federal custody after the verdict because he faces a separate federal case involving racketeering and weapons allegations. That trial is scheduled for Oct. 5.

Prosecutors also made clear that the acquittal would not end their pursuit of Durk in that separate case.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said prosecutors were disappointed with the jury's decision concerning Durk while pointing to the convictions obtained against Lindsey and Wilson and saying the government looked forward to presenting its evidence at Durk's second trial.

For now, however, the murder-for-hire case that placed Durk's career and freedom under intense scrutiny has ended decisively in his favor.

The government accused him of financing a revenge plot that ended with Saviay’a Robinson dead. Durk's lawyers argued that prosecutors had relied on unreliable cooperating witnesses and wrongly blamed their client for the actions of people around him.

After hearing both sides, the jury returned its answer on every count:

Not guilty.