Indiana attorneys react to defense strategy in trial over murder of Tupac Shakur

Monday marked 30 years since ’90s rap artist Tupac Shakur was shot inside a vehicle traveling near the Las Vegas Strip. Shakur would die from his wounds a week later, but the question of who murdered him would linger for decades.

On Aug. 31, a former gang leader was convicted in Shakur’s death, the only one to stand trial for the crime, according to The Associated Press. Duane “Keffe D” Davis, now 63 years old, faces a life sentence for his involvement.

That conviction came after Davis’s defense team put up an unusual argument: Their client was a liar whose word could not be trusted. For 30 years, the ex-gang leader had spun different narratives on what happened that night, often portraying himself as a key participant in the crime.

The strategy Davis’s lawyers chose, though unusual, proves compelling for some local defense attorneys interviewed by The Indiana Lawyer.

“Sometimes their hands are tied as to how to defend a case,” said Andrew Baldwin, a defense attorney at Baldwin Perry & Wiley P.C., who represented Richard Allen, the man convicted of killing two teenage girls in Delphi in 2017. “Getting creative and trying to figure out the best way to deal with the bad facts becomes kind of the focal point of how you defend the person.”

Here’s a deeper look at the case and what some local attorneys thought of the defense.

The road to a conviction

Shakur’s murder has long been tied to the hostile and often violent relationship between two Los Angeles gangs: the South Side Compton Crips, which Davis identified himself a leader of, and Mob Piru, which Shakur had ties to as part of his record label, Death Row Records, according to The Associated Press.

Shortly before the shooting, Shakur was involved in a physical fight with Orlando Anderson, Davis’s nephew, at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. After the brawl, Davis wanted revenge, prosecutors argued, using Davis’s own words from interviews and in his memoir, “Compton Street Legend,” to support their claim, The Washington Post reported.

Shakur was out driving near the Las Vegas Strip later that night when a white Cadillac pulled up beside his vehicle and opened fire. Over the years, Davis has publicly stated that he was in the Cadillac along with his nephew. He even said that when he couldn’t get a clear shot, he passed the gun to someone in the backseat, according to The Associated Press.

In 2008, Davis released more details on Shakur’s death during an interview with detectives investigating the 1997 shooting death of another famed rapper, Biggie Smalls. While Davis had immunity for the details he gave to police in that interview, including how he and his co-conspirators allegedly killed Tupac, he didn’t have immunity for what he said outside of the interview, The AP reported. Much of the same details about his involvement in Tupac’s death were included in later documentaries, podcasts and Davis memoir.

Although statements of that night would evolve, Davis always put himself in the Cadillac, prosecutors argued, according to The Washington Post. That, in and of itself, warranted a guilty verdict, they said. And in Nevada, a person can be charged with murder simply for helping someone else commit it.

On Aug. 31, the 16-member jury deliberated for three hours before choosing a verdict.

Unusual defense strategy

Before the jury decided Davis’s fate, his defense team brought an unusual strategy to the courtroom. Like the prosecution, the defense team relied heavily on Davis’s own words to shape their argument. But unlike the prosecution, the defense argued that Davis’s explanation of his involvement with the crime changed too much to make the conviction a slam-dunk.

Davis embellished the story of what happened that night for money and notoriety, according to his defense team. His memoir even includes a disclaimer that some facts in the book were changed.

The defense pushed the idea that Davis’s words couldn’t be taken as fact as their strategy, stating that his version of events didn’t always line up with the accounts of others, according to The Washington Post.

This strategy is an odd but sometimes necessary one, Baldwin told The Indiana Lawyer. As a defense attorney, you’re not always given the best options when it comes to defending a client. It’s important to work with what you have.

“As a defense trial lawyer of 32 years, the one thing I have learned and gotten better at is, you have to deal with those bad facts head on,” Baldwin said. “You cannot bury your head in the sand and act as if they don’t exist or hope that the prosecutor does not bring these bad facts up.”

The lack of physical evidence and Davis’s willingness to talk before his arrest put the defense in a tricky position, but Baldwin doesn’t blame them for how they approached it. He did note, however, that it could’ve helped the defense’s case if Davis, who didn’t testify, was put on the witness stand.

“I think if you’re going to go with that dangerous defense of saying my client’s a liar and you shouldn’t believe him, which is essentially what they did, you might need him to get up and explain that to the jury,” he said.

Brad Banks, a defense attorney at Banks & Brower in Indianapolis, echoed Baldwin in calling the defense strategy unusual. He also noted that the trial’s reliance on Davis’s memoir to build a narrative of his involvement reminds him of other cases involving rappers.

Attorneys are seeing an increased number of cases involving rap artists who write songs alluding to their committing a crime. Prosecutors will sometimes use those lyrics against the artists to charge them with crimes, Banks said.

But the defense attorneys can argue that the lyrics are simply theatrical and can’t be used as a confession. The lyrics are just part of the rapper’s artistry to sell albums.

“I’m sure that’s the same sort of theory they were using with the memoir,” he said. “A memoir, to sell, has to be interesting.

“To say you did something sort of legendary helps sell books. It shouldn’t be a trusted confession.”

While the defense strategy didn’t help Davis’s case, Baldwin predicts there also could be some trouble with the tactic down the road. That is particularly true if Davis seeks post-conviction relief, which would come after he exhausts his regular appeals.

The most common relief argument is ineffective assistance of counsel, Baldwin said. But that could be tricky for Davis to argue since he allowed his attorneys to discredit his own words as part of their defense.

“When you sat there and watched your own attorneys call you a liar, then that’s pretty obviously a strategy at that point,” Baldwin said. “And that strategy is kind of the [post-conviction relief] killer. … You’re not going to be able to go back later and say, ‘Well, my attorneys were ineffective because they called me a liar.’”

At the end of his trial, Davis said he intended to appeal his conviction, The Washington Post reported. His sentencing is scheduled for October. •