Thirty years after rapper Tupac Shakur was killed in a Las Vegas drive-by shooting, a former gang leader has been found guilty of orchestrating his death.

A jury in Clark County, Nev., convicted Duane “Keffe D” Davis, 63, ex-head of Los Angeles street gang South Side Compton Crips, of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, following a weekslong trial. 

But prosecutors decided not to proceed with part of the charge about gang enhancement—an extra prison sentence added to a conviction when the crime is committed for the benefit of, or in connection with, a criminal gang—citing “witness logistics.” 

Shakur’s murder in September 1996 at the age of 25 had left so many questions unanswered and has been the subject of conspiracies for years. 

But the investigation into his death was revived after Davis published his memoir, Compton Street Legend, in 2019. In the memoir and during promotions, he outlined the role of the Crips in Shakur’s death. The Crips were feuding with the Mob Piru, which had ties to Shakur ​and his record label, Death Row Records. 

Nevada law allows Davis to be charged with murder even if he did not pull the trigger.

Davis, who was arrested in 2023, could face life in prison. Clark County District Court Judge Carli Kierny ordered that Davis  be held without bail and scheduled his sentencing on Oct. 13. 

The former gang leader, however, said in court that he would appeal the conviction. 

How the verdict was reached

The trial against Davis began on Aug. 17. More than two dozen witnesses testified before a panel of 16 jurors, four of whom are alternates. Jurors also watched footage about the fight that broke out a few hours before Shakur and Death Row Records co-founder Marion “Suge” Knight, who was riding with him, were shot by a man in a white Cadillac on Sept. 7, 1996, while Shakur’s car stopped at a red light.

Knight survived, but Shakur died six days later.

Read More: 30 Years After Tupac Shakur Was Killed, a Murder Trial Begins

Throughout the trial, Davis's defense attorney, Michael Sanft, attempted to discredit the evidence against his client. 

In his closing arguments, which lasted for more than an hour, Sanft argued that the prosecution lacked the physical evidence to connect Davis to the crime scene and to determine that Davis called the shots in Shakur’s death. He also claimed the investigation was compromised, and that the Compton Police Department, which probed the local gang rivalry that provided the backdrop for the shooting, was also shut down due to corruption.

“We’re not giving you everything,” Sanft told the jurors. “And you as jurors deserve everything—in terms of the full weight of the evidence in this case. We don’t have it.”

Sanft also repeatedly attacked Davis’ memoir, saying that his client did not even read the book and that his client was telling stories to make money.

“When you think about Mr. Davis's statements, they all conflict,” Sanft told the jurors. “They conflict with the book and they conflict with the facts. And the only thing that we have that we can agree on is that Tupac Shakur was shot and killed.”

But Chief Deputy District Attorney Binu Palal emphasized the extent of evidence against Davis. Palal highlighted the defendant’s own statements over the years, in which he said he played an integral role in Shakur’s killing, including to  documentary filmmakers, in his memoir, and to the police. 

Davis told federal agents in 1998 that he had been in Las Vegas when Shakur was shot but denied knowing who killed him. The case lacked credible witnesses and the investigation stalled. But ten years later, when Davis was under threat of possible drug charges, he told police that he and his fellow Crips members looked for Shakur and Knight. Davis offered the information under a proffer agreement that he believed protected him from being prosecuted.

Prosecutors said that Shakur’s and Knight’s involvement in the beating of Davis’ nephew at the MGM Grand hotel and casino after a Mike Tyson bout prompted retaliation.

In the closing argument, Palal also played a recording of an interview where Davis urged purchases of his 2019 memoir to get the “real truth,” which counts as “textbook” admission of his statements.

“For nearly 18 years, Duane Davis has told the police, television, books, YouTube interviewers, anybody that will listen,” Palal said in his closing statement. “He has told you he is responsible for the murder of Tupac Shakur. Tell him you hear him. Find him guilty.”

The jury deliberated for less than three hours before reaching the verdict.

What are the reactions to the verdict?

The verdict comes two weeks before the 30th anniversary of Shakur’s death.

Footage from the courtroom shows that after the verdict was read, Sekyiwa “Set” Shakur, Tupac’s sister, wept while reaching for a person behind her. Some of Shakur’s other loved ones in the courtroom embraced each other, with one raising his fist in the air

But the reactions to the verdict were not limited to family members, as Shakur's 1996 killing became a defining moment of hip-hop culture's “gangsta” rap era—which reflected the violence pervasive in American inner cities that suffer from poverty.

Shakur fan Derrick Lee Stanton Jr. called the jury's conviction of Davis a “great moment” and “emotional.” But speaking to reporters outside, Stanton said that the case is “not done,” claiming that there are “more people that have to pay for the death of Tupac” as Duane is “not the lone soldier here.”

President Donald Trump’s $400 million, 90,000 sq ft White House ballroom is a step closer to becoming reality.

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Trump to move forward with construction of the ballroom, which had been partially blocked by lower courts. Divided 5-4, the Supreme Court granted an emergency request filed by the Trump Administration earlier in August, staying the lower court rulings.

The legal challenge to the construction, brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, argued that Trump did not have the authority to build the ballroom without congressional approval.

The Supreme Court ruled on procedural grounds that the trust likely does not have legal standing to sue. The court did not rule on the legality of the construction.

“Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project. We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks ... standing to challenge the project in federal court,” the court said in its ruling.

The decision comes after Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary stay on the lower court injunction on Aug. 21, allowing above-ground construction to proceed while the full court deliberated.

Roberts ultimately was the only conservative justice to dissent, arguing that the project was “likely unlawful.”

“The ballroom is a building or structure being erected on federal park grounds—President’s Park—in the District of Columbia. Yet Congress has not passed any law resembling ‘express authority’ for the Executive’s construction of it,” Roberts wrote.

Trump celebrated the legal victory in a Monday post on Truth Social.

“I am pleased to report that the United States Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the Ballroom/Military Complex being built without any further contingency, doubt, or threat,” Trump wrote. “We are living in the Golden Age of America, and this Building will be one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington, D.C.”

The President said the ballroom will be completed in the summer of 2028.

The project is part of Trump’s broader effort to leave a permanent legacy on the U.S. capital. Since signing an executive order last March to “beautify” Washington, the Administration has completed a renovation of the Reflecting Pool, pursued an overhaul of the Kennedy Center, and announced plans to erect a 76m arch. Trump also began renovating the “horrible” front of the White House in July.

Legal battles

The trust filed the lawsuit in December on behalf of one of its members, Alison Hoagland, an architectural historian and preservationist who lives in Washington. Hoagland said in a declaration that she would “suffer both professional and personal injuries, including to my aesthetic, cultural and historical interests, if a ballroom of the proposed form and scale were constructed.” She argued that “an adjacent structure overshadowing the White House, exceeding it in height and massing, would diminish the primacy of the White House.”

The Supreme Court’s majority said the trust likely lacked standing as the court had not previously recognized legal standing “in circumstances like these.”

“To the contrary, we have repeatedly held that mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury,” the court said.

Roberts, in his dissent, wrote that a “historic preservationist such as Hoagland can be aesthetically injured in a concrete, particularized way by the transformation of a historic building that she frequently enjoys.”

The trust also argued that the government needed the “express authority of Congress” to build on federal land in Washington, D.C.

The Justice Department argued that the White House had authority for the construction under other federal statutes. It also argued that the project was necessary for national security reasons, citing an alleged assassination attempt on Trump during the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in April, as well as other alleged attacks and threats against the President.

“This case involves an extraordinary ⁠and unlawful injunction that will halt the ongoing construction of the integrated military complex, including a totally secure ballroom space, at the East Wing of the White House, which is vitally required by national security,” DOJ lawyers argued. The Administration said in its emergency request that construction was 65% complete.

The Supreme Court majority concluded that halting construction at this stage would likely cause “irreparable harm” to the government.

In late March, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the trust, blocking above-ground construction of the ballroom while litigation proceeded. The underground portion of the project, which involved construction of military and medical infrastructure, was allowed to continue, along with above-ground work deemed “strictly necessary” to ensure security.

On Aug. 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction, concluding that the Administration could not construct the ballroom during litigation without obtaining congressional approval.

“Each ‌President is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House,” the D.C. Circuit majority said in its ruling.

The trust’s president and CEO Brent Leggs said in a statement on Monday that the organization was “deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court’s ruling.” He noted that “the majority did not weigh in on whether the ballroom project was in fact legal.”

“This is not the final decision on the merits of our case and does not resolve our fundamental argument—that each President is a temporary steward of the People’s House and does not have the unilateral authority to demolish and redesign it without the approval of Congress,” Leggs said.

‘Golden Age’

Construction began last October with the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. Built in 1902 during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency and expanded in 1942, the East Wing had housed the offices of the first lady and the White House movie theater.

The new ballroom, substantially bigger than the demolished 12,000 sq ft East Wing, is expected to accommodate as many as 999 guests and include missile-resistant columns, drone-resistant ceilings, and ballistic- and blast-proof glass. It also includes an underground complex containing bomb shelters, medical facilities, and other security features.

The Administration has estimated that the project will cost $400 million, up from an initial estimate of $200 million. It has said that the ballroom is funded entirely through private donations, although it said taxpayer funds would pay for security and military components of the project.

The Washington Post reported in June that an internal contractor estimate projected a total cost of $600 million, with just over half coming from taxpayer-funded accounts. Democratic lawmakers have also pointed to Office of Management and Budget documents that showed more than $350 million in Secret Service funding reserved for “White House Security Measures,” which the lawmakers alleged were connected to the ballroom project.

There was initially little congressional appetite to authorize the project. But after the April shooting, some congressional Republicans rallied behind the project. Three Republican Senators introduced legislation to authorize $400 million in federal funding for the overall project. Senate Republicans later proposed a separate $1 billion appropriation for broader Secret Service needs, which included security features associated with the project, although the provision was ultimately removed from the legislation before it passed Congress.

Even so, some lawmakers have continued to oppose the construction project. Seven Republicans joined Democrats in June in an unsuccessful bid to bar federal or private funding for the ballroom without congressional authorization.

The Administration said in court filings that a 250-person crew has been working 20 hours a day, seven days a week.

“The Project, despite the baseless lawsuit brought by the so-called National Trust for Historic Preservation of the United States, which is not in any way affiliated with the United States Government, is under budget and ahead of schedule,” Trump wrote on Monday.

The prediction-market exchange Kalshi has permanently prohibited former Rep. George Santos from accessing the platform after establishing “reasonable cause to believe” that he participated in insider trading.

The lifetime ban—the first time Kalshi has ever imposed such a penalty on a user—comes after the company investigated the former New York Republican Congressman for allegedly placing bets on the prediction market platform over whether he was going to attend President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Feb. 24.

“As a person capable of influencing the outcome of the underlying event, Santos was prohibited from trading in this market” under Kalshi’s exchange rules, the company said in a statement. But, the company alleged, Santos “placed a series of large trades in a market where the underlying contracts depended upon his own attendance at the event” from Feb. 2 to 25. Kalshi added that Santos made “a series of public statements regarding his attendance at the event in an attempt to influence the price of Yes and No contracts, respectively,” and that some of those statements were “false or misleading.” On Kalshi, users can trade “Yes” or “No” on whether they think something will happen in the future.

Santos said on social media ahead of Trump’s State of the Union address in February that he was going to be at the event, but ultimately did not attend.

“The Compliance Department found that Santos made these statements with the intent to manipulate the price of the Yes or No contracts that he intended to purchase. Ultimately, these statements did in fact manipulate the price of said contracts,” Kalshi alleged. “Furthermore, The Department found that Santos materially benefited from his trading activity, profiting $17,839.57 in the Target Markets.”

In addition to permanently banning Santos from Kalshi, the company also levied a fine of $71,356 against him.

Santos responded to the news on Monday, saying in a post on X: “Hey @Kalshi thanks for the lifetime ban from your gambling platform. Let’s see how much longer you guys are around for.”

In another post on X, Santos alleged that Kalshi “violates its own notices and deadlines,” accusing the company of giving him a 30-day notice on Aug. 7 but announcing the lifetime ban ahead of the deadline.

Robert DeNault, head of enforcement at Kalshi, said on social media that the company was temporarily suspending other individuals over allegations of insider trading. He added, though, that Santos was the only person who didn’t cooperate with Kalshi’s investigation into the alleged violations.

Kalshi’s penalties against Santos come after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission fined the former Congressman more than $35,000 in July related to trading on his attendance at Trump’s State of the Union address. The commission alleged that Santos engaged “in manipulative activity in an event contract — whose underlying event Santos controlled — designed to affect the price of the swap.” Santos didn’t admit to the allegations, but he agreed to pay the penalties.

Santos, who was expelled from the House in 2023, was sentenced in April 2025 to more than seven years in prison after pleading guilty to federal charges of wire fraud and identity theft. But in October, Trump announced that he had commuted Santos’ sentence, and Santos was released after serving less than three months.