The witnesses have finished testifying. The prosecution and defense have rested. Lil Durk chose not to take the stand, and the jury is scheduled to return Tuesday 8th, for closing arguments.
But just when it appeared that everyone involved had finally stopped talking, OTF Jam reportedly returned to social media with a blistering message aimed directly at Durk.
Now, instead of the focus being solely on what happened inside the courtroom, a new question is following this case into its final stage: Could a government witness publicly attacking the defendant days before deliberations create another problem?
Both Sides Have Officially Rested
Prosecutors and defense attorneys completed their cases on Thursday, September 3.
The government built its case largely around three cooperating witnesses—Kacey “OTF Jam” Hester, Keith “Flacka” Jones and Kavon “OTF Vonni” Grant—all of whom admitted their own involvement in the alleged operation and testified against Durk.
The prosecution says Durk ordered and financed an attempt to kill Quando Rondo in retaliation for King Von’s 2020 death. Quando survived the August 2022 shooting near the Beverly Center in Los Angeles, but his cousin, Saviay’a “Lul Pab” Robinson, was killed.
Durk, Deondre “OTF DeDe” Wilson and David “Browneyez” Lindsey have pleaded not guilty.
Durk’s defense did not dispute that the shooting happened. Instead, attorneys concentrated on one central argument: Vonni organized the operation himself and later blamed Durk to reduce his own punishment.
King Von’s Son’s Mother Directly Challenges Vonni
One of the defense’s most important witnesses was Shekema Springfield, the mother of King Von’s son.
Springfield testified that she spent three days with Von’s family at the home where his memorial took place. According to her, Durk was never there and she heard no discussions about revenge.
That directly contradicts Vonni’s earlier testimony that Durk attended the gathering and participated in conversations about retaliation.
Springfield described Vonni as a “liar and a thief.” She also recalled asking him what happened after King Von was killed. According to her testimony, Vonni told her not to worry because he was going to “take care of it.”
Durk’s longtime friend Ryan Green added another layer. Green testified that Vonni repeatedly spoke about revenge after Von’s death and allegedly said:
“I’m gonna pop him or I’m gonna be there when it happens.”
That testimony does not prove Vonni acted independently. However, it gives the defense witnesses who support its claim that Vonni had his own motive to pursue Quando Rondo.
Los Angeles Magazine reported extensively on the September 3 defense testimony.
Vonni previously testified that Durk learned Quando Rondo would be in California during an August 18, 2022 private flight.
According to Vonni, Durk told him to “put it together”—words Vonni says he understood as an order to organize an attack.
Durk’s sound engineer, Justin Gibson, testified that he was also aboard that small plane. Gibson said he never heard the alleged conversation and described his time around Durk on August 18 and 19 as normal.
That does not conclusively prove the conversation never happened. Gibson may not have heard everything said onboard. Still, his testimony challenges the impression that Vonni’s alleged exchange with Durk occurred without anyone else nearby.
The Defense Comes for OTF Jam’s Credibility
Jam’s current wife and a former girlfriend were among the defense witnesses called after prosecutors rested.
Jam’s former girlfriend testified that he believed Durk owed him money after his release from prison. She called Jam “not truthful at all” and described him as a manipulator.
But her attack on Jam came with a serious credibility problem of its own.
She initially told jurors she had never been arrested. Prosecutors confronted her with a 2016 forgery arrest and another arrest involving theft. When asked whether her earlier answer had been a lie, she admitted that it was.
Jam’s wife also disputed part of his testimony. She said she was not present for a phone call Jam described involving Boonie Moe and the California trip.
However, prosecutors established that she opposed her husband’s cooperation regardless of whether his testimony was truthful. She also testified that her family received threats and had been relocated after Jam began cooperating.
So while the defense called two women who know Jam personally, neither offered jurors a perfectly clean reason to reject everything he said.
The Judge Draws a Line Around Durk’s Money
As attorneys prepared the final jury instructions, Judge Michael Fitzgerald gave the defense an important point to carry into closing arguments.
Prosecutors presented records showing that flights, hotels, vehicles, phones and other expenses were paid while members of the alleged group traveled to California.
The judge made clear that those purchases, by themselves, do not prove a murder bounty.
“Paying for those sorts of instrumentalities are not enough,” Fitzgerald said. “It has to be a bounty beyond the actual fact of those things.”
In other words, even if jurors believe Durk’s money paid for travel or accommodations, prosecutors must still prove that he knowingly offered money or something valuable in exchange for Quando Rondo’s death.
That distinction could become central because the cooperating witnesses did not tell identical stories about the alleged reward.
Jam said Durk would “make anybody straight.” Flacka testified that DeDe relayed a $1 million offer, while Vonni claimed Durk ordered the operation and approved its costs.
The government also agreed it would not ask jurors to convict Durk based on an independent plan created by DeDe without Durk’s knowledge. Prosecutors must prove Durk knowingly joined or directed the charged conspiracy—not merely that people around him used his money or name.
AllHipHop reported on the judge’s ruling concerning the travel expenses and alleged bounty.
Then OTF Jam Reportedly Went Off on Instagram
On Sunday, September 6—days after both sides rested—an Instagram account associated with OTF Jam reportedly published a lengthy attack against Durk.
The post began bluntly:
“F— Durk. The money made dude a leader.”
The message accused Durk of caring more about his public image and stopping people from saying “slide for Von” than about the men facing prison.
Jam also described having completed a 12-year sentence, finally becoming a free father and then receiving a call to travel to Los Angeles only six months after his release. He admitted that his own actions were wrong but continued blaming Durk for placing him in that situation.
Because Jam remains incarcerated, it has not been independently established that he personally typed and uploaded the message. The most precise description is that it was published from an account associated with him unless Jam, his attorney or the account’s operator confirms otherwise.
Could Jam’s Post Prejudice the Jury?
The timing is uncomfortable—but the post does not automatically create grounds for a mistrial.
Jurors have been instructed not to search for information about the case, read media coverage or follow social-media commentary. There is currently no confirmed public report that any juror saw Jam’s message.
If one did, Durk’s attorneys could ask the judge to investigate, question the jurors or issue another instruction. The defense could potentially ask for stronger relief if it established that the post reached the jury and affected someone’s impartiality.
The message could also support the defense’s argument that Jam is motivated by resentment. Inside the courtroom, Jam told jurors that he still had love for Durk but no longer respected him. Outside the courtroom, the tone attributed to his account was openly hostile.
However, unless the case is reopened and the post is admitted into evidence, jurors should not consider it when deciding the verdict.
What Happens Next?
Closing arguments and final jury instructions are scheduled for Tuesday, September 8. Deliberations could begin Tuesday or Wednesday.
The government will argue that three admitted participants independently connected Durk to the attack, while the defense will emphasize their cooperation deals, changed accounts, conflicting testimony and personal motives.
The jury’s decision may ultimately come down to one question:
Did Durk knowingly order and finance a murder-for-hire—or did people around him organize the operation while using his money, influence and name?
No verdict has been reached.
It is one thing for Jam to testify under oath, face cross-examination and allow the jury to judge his words alongside every inconsistency exposed by the defense.
It is another thing for a government witness—or someone operating his account—to launch a social-media attack against the defendant immediately before closing arguments.
Even if the jury never sees it, the timing makes the post look less like someone reluctantly telling the truth and more like someone still carrying a very personal grievance. That does not prove Jam lied. But in a case already built around cooperating witnesses with freedom, resentment and reduced sentences on the line, it gives people one more reason to question where testimony ends and personal revenge begins.
#LilDurkTrial #OTFJam #OTFVonni #QuandoRondo #CrimeAndTrials
Join the Conversation
Your perspective matters—share your thoughts and connect with the City Chic community.