What Keffe D Told Police About Tupac FOURTEEN Years Ago

**SPEAKER_1** (0:01)
This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Drake.

**Tony Brueski** (0:08)
Here's another trial that we've been waiting roughly 30 years for. Duane Keffe D Davis is going to trial in Las Vegas for the 1996, 30 years ago, murder of Tupac Shakur nearly 30 years after the shooting. He wasn't caught by forensics or witnesses who flipped. He was caught, prosecutors allege, because he couldn't stop talking about it. Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis is with us to help break down what to expect as the trial for the murder of Tupac actually begins. Keffe D, he wasn't caught by DNA. He wasn't caught by detective work. He allegedly got himself arrested by writing a book. His 2019 memoir, Compton Street Legend, describes being in the white Cadillac providing the gun and ordering the retaliation hit on Tupac after Tupac's crew beat Davis' nephew at the MGM Grand. He said the same things in a BET documentary. He said the same things in police interviews. LasVegas Homicide says those public statements were what brought the investigation back to life after sitting cold for decades. Did this man talk himself into the murder charge, Eric?

**Eric Faddis** (1:22)
Uh, yeah, I think absolutely. He's been popping off for years and years and bragging about, oh, being involved in killing the beloved artist in so many people's hearts.
And so, yeah, that is he has himself to blame if he's sitting in that jail cell and wondering why am I here? It is because he could not keep his mouth shut.

**Tony Brueski** (1:49)
The reason Keffe D Davis says that he talked, the only reason he told police anything was because he was promised immunity in 2008 It's called a proffer agreement. And remember that term, a proffer deal is where he cooperated with the LAPD on the Biggie Smalls investigation and gave up what he allegedly knew about Tupac's murder in exchange for protection from prosecution. So they were looking for information in the Biggie case. And he said, I can tell you things, but I can't I don't want to be prosecuted for anything I'm about to tell you. But it could help you. He alleges they had that sort of proffer agreement there that said, OK, you're immune from anything that you tell us. OK, so he talks. His attorneys fought to suppress those statements. The judge let them in. Let's talk about what that first means, Eric, a proffer agreement.
Is it is it a black and white sign here? You're never going to be prosecuted. Is it a is it a gentleman's agreement? What exactly is he talking about?

**Eric Faddis** (2:50)
Yeah, the term gentleman might be a little generous. I've had some scenarios I've been in, but, you know, it can often be very informal. It's kind of like the law enforcement's like, hey, dude, you're screwed on this and we're going to make it really bad for you. But if you tell us some good stuff that we can use, we'll make it less bad for you. And the person's like, less bad? What does that mean? Like, what are the parameters of this?
And so sometimes if I ever have a client do this, I have at least some pillars of the agreement in writing agreed to by both sides because this is the problem that arises is later on, Keffe D is like, I thought you said I wouldn't get in trouble for saying this stuff. And then they're like, well, we didn't talk about you saying this stuff outside of this context. And it's all a big confusing mess. And so sometimes it's unclear.

**Tony Brueski** (3:39)
Is it almost, I mean, is it relied on sometimes by law enforcement to essentially set someone up and get them to speak more readily by omission of not informing them that, okay, within the context of this conversation, we can't go after you. But if you go on camera, if you go on BET, if you go on Vlad's podcast, if you go on whatever and talk about all of this shit, if you write a book about it, that we can go after you for, even if it's the exact same things you've told us simply by omitting the fact that you can't go out there and talk about that, we're gonna get you for it. But or is that even the agreement with every proffer agreement? It seems like a very gray area agreement that sometimes criminals put a little bit too much faith in of what they can talk about and what they can't talk about and they don't really seem to understand that there's not really anything set in stone here to begin with.