Nearly thirty years after a bullet ended Tupac Shakur's life on a Las Vegas street, the law has finally named a man responsible — yet the swiftness of that naming now raises its own questions. Duane Davis was convicted of first-degree murder in under three hours, a timeline his attorney argues reflects not justice deliberated but judgment already formed. The case reminds us that the long arc of accountability, when it finally bends, does not always bend cleanly.
Tupac case: Defense attorney challenges jury verdict, cites 'preconceived notions'
Tupac Shakur was killed in the 1996 drive-by shooting; Marion 'Suge' Knight was wounded but survived; Orlando Anderson, allegedly the shooter, died in an unrelated shooting 20 months later.
There is no actual evidence that supported the conviction
Mark
Why does the speed of the jury's deliberation matter so much to the defense?
Mimi
Sanft sees it as evidence the jury didn't actually weigh the evidence. Three hours for a murder case that went to trial—he thinks they came in with their minds made up.
Luke
But Nevada doesn't require a minimum deliberation time, so legally it's fine. And we don't know what happened in that room. Three hours could mean they reviewed everything and reached consensus, or it could mean what Sanft says. We just don't know.
Mark
What's the core problem with the evidence against Davis?
Mimi
The prosecution's case relies heavily on Davis's own statements—his book, his interviews, his police confession. He said he got the gun and passed it to Anderson, who fired the shots.
Luke
Right, but those statements are also the problem. Davis's book came out in 2019, after he'd already agreed to cooperate. That book broke the immunity deal. So the prosecution is using his own words against him, but those words were made in a context where he was trying to tell his story publicly.
Mark
Is there physical evidence placing Davis at the scene?
Mimi
That's exactly what Sanft is saying—there isn't. He says there's no actual proof Davis was even in Las Vegas that day.
Luke
The source doesn't detail what physical evidence the prosecution presented. We know they had Davis's statements and his criminal history. But whether there was ballistics, DNA, witness identification, surveillance footage—we don't know from this reporting.
Mark
What about the judge's role in this?
Mimi
Sanft thinks Judge Kierny stacked the deck. She allowed evidence of Davis's gang and drug past, and she told the jury they didn't need corroborating evidence if they believed Davis's own words.
Luke
Those are real evidentiary decisions that affect how a jury sees a defendant. But we're hearing only the defense's characterization. We don't have the judge's reasoning or the prosecution's response to those specific rulings.
Mark
What happens next?
Mimi
Sentencing in October, then an appeal that could take over a year.
Luke
And during that appeal, the question becomes whether those evidentiary rulings and jury instructions were legally sound. That's where the real fight happens.
Le Pouls
- A jury needed less than three hours to close a case that law enforcement left open for nearly thirty years, and that speed has become the fault line of the entire conviction.
- Defense attorney Michael Sanft argues his client never stood on level ground — the judge allowed Davis's criminal history and his own self-incriminating book into evidence, forcing the defense to undermine its own client just to survive.
- Davis's published memoir and public interviews, made after an immunity deal collapsed, handed prosecutors their most damaging weapon and left the defense, in Sanft's words, down 52 to 0 before the opening kickoff.
- Sanft insists no physical evidence places Davis in Las Vegas on the night of the shooting, and that a verdict built entirely on a defendant's own contradictory words is a verdict built on sand.
- With sentencing set for October 13 and a life prison term looming, an appeal is being prepared — one that could take more than a year and reopen every contested ruling that shaped this trial.
Nearly thirty years after a bullet ended Tupac Shakur's life on a Las Vegas street, the law has finally named a man responsible — yet the swiftness of that naming now raises its own questions. Duane Davis was convicted of first-degree murder in under three hours, a timeline his attorney argues reflects not justice deliberated but judgment already formed. The case reminds us that the long arc of accountability, when it finally bends, does not always bend cleanly.
Nearly three decades after a drive-by shooting in Las Vegas killed rapper Tupac Shakur, a jury convicted Duane "Keffe D" Davis of first-degree murder — and did so in under three hours. That speed has since become the heart of the defense's challenge to the verdict.
Davis's attorney, Michael Sanft, told CBS News he does not believe the jury genuinely worked through the evidence. His argument is that jurors arrived with their conclusions already formed, and that preexisting assumptions — not facts — carried them to guilty. Nevada law sets no minimum deliberation time, so the three-hour window was permissible, if striking.
Prosecutors argued that Davis orchestrated the September 1996 shooting as retaliation for an earlier beating of his nephew, Orlando Anderson, passing a gun to the backseat of a Cadillac from which Anderson allegedly fired the fatal shots. Davis was not accused of pulling the trigger — Nevada law allows conviction for facilitating another's crime. Anderson was never charged and died in an unrelated shooting less than two years later, leaving Davis as the last living person allegedly present that night.
Much of the prosecution's case rested on Davis's own words. A prior immunity agreement collapsed after Davis published a memoir in 2019 placing himself inside the vehicle and describing how he obtained the weapon. He later claimed he had never actually read the book — a contradiction prosecutors exploited fully.
Sanft also challenged the trial judge's rulings, which allowed Davis's gang history and drug trafficking record into evidence and instructed jurors that Davis's own statements alone could support a conviction without independent corroboration. That instruction, Sanft argued, forced him to attack his own client's credibility as the only viable defense strategy.
Davis faces sentencing on October 13 and could receive life in prison. Sanft is preparing an appeal he estimates will take more than a year — extending a legal saga that has already stretched across three decades.
Nearly three decades after a Las Vegas drive-by shooting claimed the life of rapper Tupac Shakur, a jury took less than three hours to convict Duane "Keffe D" Davis of first-degree murder. The speed of that verdict has now become the centerpiece of the defense's challenge to the conviction.
Michael Sanft, Davis's attorney, told CBS News on Tuesday that he believes the jury never genuinely engaged with the evidence presented during the trial. "I'm surprised," he said. "With the amount of evidence that should have been considered by the jury, I don't believe that they went through it." Sanft's core argument is that jurors arrived at the courthouse with their minds already made up about his client, and those preexisting assumptions—not the facts of the case—drove them to guilty. Nevada law places no requirement on how long a jury must deliberate before reaching a verdict, which means the three-hour timeline, while striking to observers, was technically permissible.
The prosecution's case centered on the events of September 6, 1996. According to prosecutors, Davis obtained the gun used in the shooting and orchestrated the drive-by as retaliation for an earlier beating that night of his nephew, Orlando "Baby Lane" Anderson. The target was Tupac Shakur and Marion "Suge" Knight, the Death Row Records co-founder who was also shot but survived. Chief Deputy District Attorney Marc DiGiacomo called it "a slam-dunk, absolutely no defense to murder case" during closing arguments. Prosecutors did not claim Davis pulled the trigger; under Nevada law, a person can be convicted of murder for facilitating someone else's crime. According to police interviews, Davis said Anderson fired the shots after Davis passed a gun to the backseat of their Cadillac. Anderson was never charged and died in an unrelated shooting roughly 20 months later. Davis is now the only person allegedly involved in the shooting still alive.
The defense strategy unraveled partly because of Davis's own words. He had initially been offered immunity in exchange for cooperation with authorities, but that agreement fell apart after he published a book called "Compton Street Legend" in 2019 and gave various public interviews. In the book, Davis placed himself inside the vehicle and described obtaining a Glock .40 from a drug dealer named Eric "Zip" Martin. He later claimed he had never actually read the book and was simply given a co-author credit—a contradiction that prosecutors used against him.
Sanft also objected strenuously to Judge Carli Kierny's evidentiary rulings. The judge allowed prosecutors to present evidence of Davis's criminal history, including his gang leadership and drug trafficking, which Sanft called "inappropriate." More damaging still, Kierny instructed the jury that if they believed Davis's own incriminating statements, they would not need to find independent corroborating evidence to convict. This instruction, Sanft argued, forced him into an impossible position: he had to attack his own client's credibility to mount any defense at all. "Going into the trial, we knew already that we were behind on the scoreboard," Sanft told CBS News. "It's like a football game where it was 52 to 0 walking in at the opening kickoff."
Sanft maintains there is no actual proof Davis was even in Las Vegas on the day of the shooting. "There is no actual evidence that supported the conviction," he said. "There was a feeling that it was the right thing to do, but not with real evidence." He described his defense strategy—attacking Davis's credibility—as the only viable approach when a conviction rests solely on a defendant's words without factual corroboration.
Davis faces sentencing on October 13 and could receive life in prison. Sanft plans to file an appeal, a process he estimates could take more than a year to resolve. The case, which sat cold for nearly three decades before Davis's arrest, now moves into a new phase of legal contestation.
Citations marquantes
With the amount of evidence that should have been considered by the jury, I don't believe that they went through it.— Michael Sanft, defense attorney
There is no actual evidence that supported the conviction. There was a feeling that it was the right thing to do, but not with real evidence.— Michael Sanft, defense attorney
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur CBS News ↗
Crime & Justice