High‑profile defense attorney Mark Geragos took to the airwaves this week to dispute claims made by Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman about the handling of the murder case involving internet sensation D4vd and the death of 19‑year‑old Celeste Rivas. Geragos argued that the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) acted independently of the prosecutor’s office, and that the DA’s office is now attempting to present a united front that does not reflect the reality of the investigation.
Background: The D4vd‑Celeste Rivas Murder Case
On a quiet Thursday in early April 2026, Los Angeles police arrested the rising music artist known as D4vd (real name David Vargas) in connection with the fatal stabbing of Celeste Rivas, a college student from the city’s Eastside. According to the LAPD, officers responded to a 911 call reporting a disturbance at D4vd’s rented home in the Echo Park neighborhood. When they arrived, they found Rivas with severe injuries consistent with a “sharp instrument” wound. She was pronounced dead at the scene.
Within hours, D4vd was taken into custody and charged with murder. The district attorney’s office later announced that the case could carry the death penalty, a rare move in California where capital punishment is largely dormant. The charge has ignited a media firestorm, not only because of the celebrity status of the accused but also due to the stark contrast between the police narrative and the defense’s emerging counter‑story.
Geragos’ Critique of the Prosecutor‑Police Relationship
During a live interview on TMZ Live, Geragos dismissed Hochman’s assertion that the LAPD and the DA’s office were working in “lockstep” to secure the arrest. He described the prosecutor’s statements as an attempt to “put on a united front” while, in reality, the police were frustrated with what they perceived as a lack of prosecutorial action.
According to Geragos, the LAPD’s decision to arrest D4vd on Thursday was a strategic move designed to force the DA’s hand. He claimed that prosecutors were not yet prepared to file formal charges because they had not secured essential witnesses or forensic evidence. The police, fed up with the perceived inertia, proceeded with the arrest to compel the district attorney to act.
Geragos also highlighted a discrepancy between the DA’s public statements and the internal timeline of the investigation. He noted that Hochman’s office had previously indicated that they were still reviewing the case when the police made the arrest, suggesting that the two agencies were not as synchronized as the DA would have the public believe.
Legal Strategies and Upcoming Court Proceedings
The defense team, led by Geragos, has already taken several tactical steps that could shape the trajectory of the case. One of the most significant moves was filing a motion for a preliminary hearing within ten days of the arrest, a right guaranteed under California law. If the prosecution cannot present sufficient evidence at that hearing, a judge has the authority to dismiss the charges outright.
Geragos warned that the prosecutors are unlikely to be ready for such a hearing. He predicts that the DA’s office will instead seek a grand jury indictment, a maneuver that would bypass the public preliminary hearing and potentially limit the defense’s ability to challenge the evidence in an open courtroom.
In addition to the preliminary hearing, the defense has refused to waive D4vd’s right to a speedy trial. By preserving this right, Geragos hopes to keep pressure on the prosecution to move quickly, thereby exposing any gaps in their case preparation.
Below are the key legal maneuvers currently in play:
- Preliminary hearing request: Filed to force the prosecution to demonstrate probable cause within ten days.
- Grand jury indictment pursuit: Likely strategy by the DA to avoid a public preliminary hearing.
- <
InfluencerBlogger
