Nearly two weeks after Lil Durk walked away from his federal murder-for-hire trial with not-guilty verdicts on all five counts, one of the jurors who helped acquit him is offering a rare look inside the deliberation room — and according to the juror, the final decision was anything but easy.

An anonymous member of the federal jury spoke with content creator Ceddy Nash on his Nightly Nash show about the three days jurors spent weighing the government’s case against Durk, whose legal name is Durk Banks.

The juror described intense disagreements, an exhaustive review of the evidence and a point late in deliberations when the panel appeared so divided that the juror believed the trial could end without a verdict.

“We were at each other’s throats,” the juror recalled, describing significant back-and-forth among the panel.

The juror said the group nevertheless continued working through the case rather than abandoning deliberations, ultimately reaching the unanimous decision required to acquit Durk on all five federal charges.

Three Days Behind Closed Doors

Durk was acquitted September 11 following a closely watched federal trial in Los Angeles over prosecutors’ allegation that he orchestrated a 2022 murder-for-hire plot targeting rapper Quando Rondo.

Quando Rondo, whose legal name is Tyquian Bowman, survived the August 2022 shooting near Los Angeles, but his cousin Saviay’a “Lul Pab” Robinson was killed.

Federal prosecutors alleged the attack was retaliation connected to the November 2020 killing of Durk’s friend and fellow Chicago rapper King Von.

Durk denied orchestrating the plot and pleaded not guilty.

After weeks of testimony, jurors received the case and began deliberating September 9.

They did not immediately reach an agreement.

Instead, according to the anonymous juror, the panel spent three days working through what had become an enormous evidentiary record.

“We went through every single piece of evidence,” the juror said.

That included physical exhibits, digital material and two large binders containing evidence from the trial.

The public court record supports the juror’s description of a panel actively examining the evidence.

On the first day of deliberations, jurors asked to have the evidence available digitally. On the second day, they sought clarification concerning the conspiracy-to-commit-stalking instructions and the legal meaning of “intent.”

After approximately three days of deliberations, they returned their verdicts.

The Juror Thought a Mistrial Could Be Coming

The most revealing portion of the interview concerns just how divided the jury apparently became before reaching its final decision.

According to the juror, disagreements remained significant into the third day.

The panel was so “deadlocked,” the juror said, that they personally began thinking a mistrial might be the eventual result.

A mistrial would have dramatically changed the trajectory of the case.

Because a criminal conviction or acquittal generally requires a unanimous federal jury, an irreconcilably divided panel can result in a hung jury and mistrial. Prosecutors may then have the option of retrying unresolved charges.

That did not happen here.

The jurors continued deliberating and eventually reached unanimous verdicts on Durk.

The anonymous juror said the process could have continued considerably longer if necessary because the panel was determined to carefully examine the case.

“It would have gone on to like a week more because we were that thorough,” the juror said.

Three Pieces of Evidence Became Particularly Important

Although the jury examined the entire evidentiary record, the juror said approximately three pieces of evidence remained especially important toward the end of deliberations.

The juror did not publicly reduce the acquittal to one exhibit or one witness.

Instead, the interview portrays the verdict as the product of jurors repeatedly testing individual pieces of the government’s case against the legal requirements prosecutors had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

“There were about three pieces of evidence that were really important,” the juror said, describing them as part of the final “hang-up.”

One central issue was whether prosecutors had sufficiently connected Durk himself to the alleged murder-for-hire operation.

That distinction was critical.

The government wasn’t merely required to establish that a shooting occurred, that Robinson was killed or that people associated with Durk participated in events surrounding the attack.

To convict Durk, prosecutors had to prove the elements of the specific crimes charged against him beyond a reasonable doubt.

The anonymous juror’s comments suggest questions about authority and control became particularly significant as the panel evaluated whether the government’s evidence established Durk’s alleged role.

Durk’s Akademiks Interview Was Examined

One piece of evidence that received considerable attention during the trial was a 2023 interview Durk gave to DJ Akademiks.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys offered sharply different interpretations of statements Durk made during that conversation.

The government argued portions of the interview could be understood as incriminating when considered alongside its broader theory of the case.

Durk’s attorneys argued that the remarks were vague and did not prove their client ordered a murder.

The jury examined the interview during deliberations.

But according to the anonymous juror, Durk’s comments in that interview did not personally carry substantial weight in reaching the verdict.

That doesn’t mean every juror viewed the evidence identically.

The interview itself makes clear that the panel disagreed over portions of the case before eventually reaching unanimity.

It does, however, provide insight into how at least one juror assessed evidence prosecutors had presented as part of their effort to connect Durk to the alleged plot.

The Jury Did Not Treat Durk Differently Because He Was Famous

The juror also pushed back against the idea that Durk’s celebrity influenced the process.

Durk entered the courtroom as a Grammy-winning rapper with millions of fans, while the trial attracted extensive attention from hip-hop media, YouTubers, streamers and national entertainment outlets.

His supporters regularly appeared around the courthouse.

Celebrities attended portions of the proceedings.

Inside the jury room, however, the anonymous juror said Durk was evaluated under the same standard as co-defendants Deandre “OTF DeDe” Wilson and David “Browneyez” Lindsey.

“We gave the same importance to Durk as we did to DeDe and Lindsey,” the juror said. “We gave them all a fair shot.”

The different verdicts returned for the three defendants provide important context.

Durk was acquitted on all five counts.

Wilson and Lindsey were also acquitted of the murder-for-hire charges but were convicted on stalking-related counts.

That mixed outcome indicates the jury did not simply accept or reject the government’s entire case as one package.

Jurors distinguished among defendants and charges.

Durk Faced Five Counts

The jury had five charges involving Durk to consider.

They included conspiracy to commit stalking, stalking Quando Rondo using a dangerous weapon, stalking Robinson resulting in death, conspiracy to use interstate-commerce facilities in a murder-for-hire resulting in Robinson’s death, and using interstate-commerce facilities in a murder-for-hire resulting in Robinson’s death.

On September 11, the jury found Durk not guilty on every one.

The acquittals represented a major defeat for prosecutors after a case that had kept Durk incarcerated while the government accused him of being behind a revenge plot stemming from King Von’s death.

Durk’s defense spent the trial challenging the government’s attempt to connect him personally to the attack.

His attorneys argued that prosecutors were relying on associations, ambiguous statements and the conduct of other people to build a case against their client.

The unanimous acquittal means prosecutors failed to persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the five charges.

It does not establish a broader factual finding about everything surrounding the 2022 shooting; it establishes that Durk was found not guilty of the federal offenses charged in this trial.

A Rare Look Inside the Verdict

Jurors generally conduct their deliberations in complete secrecy.

They can discuss their experience after a trial concludes, but courts ordinarily do not release a transcript explaining who argued what or how the panel moved from disagreement to unanimity.

That makes the anonymous juror’s interview particularly notable.

The public already knew deliberations lasted three days.

Now, according to someone who participated in them, those three days included heated disagreements, meticulous evidence review and a moment when at least one juror thought unanimity might never come.

The account also complicates any suggestion that Durk’s acquittal was immediate or obvious to the panel.

According to the juror, it wasn’t.

The jurors argued.

They returned to the evidence.

They examined exhibits individually.

They questioned what prosecutors had actually proved about Durk’s role.

And eventually, they reached the same conclusion on all five charges against him.

Not guilty.

The Acquittal Did Not Free Durk

Despite beating the murder-for-hire case, Durk did not walk out of federal custody after the verdict.

He remains detained because he faces a separate federal prosecution involving racketeering-related allegations and weapons charges.

That separate case was severed from the murder-for-hire trial, meaning the September 11 verdict did not resolve it.

The distinction is critical.

Durk has been acquitted of all five charges in the Quando Rondo/Lul Pab prosecution.

He has not been acquitted of the charges awaiting him in the separate federal case, and those allegations remain unresolved unless and until they are adjudicated or otherwise disposed of.

‘We Went Through Every Single Piece of Evidence’

For Durk’s supporters, the September 11 verdict was the result they had been waiting for.

The anonymous juror’s interview now provides the first substantial public account of how difficult the path to that verdict apparently was.

The juror described a panel that was deeply divided but unwilling to rush.

“I just hope that people understand the process that went in, how much work we put in,” the juror said while expressing pride in the other members of the jury despite their disagreements.

Those disagreements nearly convinced the juror that a mistrial was coming.

Instead, the panel kept deliberating.

Three days after receiving the case, all 12 jurors ultimately agreed on the question that mattered for Durk’s first federal trial.

On each of the five counts, their answer was the same:

Not guilty.