Josh Kolsrud Interviewed by Nancy Grace about David Anthony Burke, aka “Pain” “D4VD

The case surrounding David Anthony Burke (aka D4vd) and the tragic death of Celeste Rivas has captured national attention, not only for its disturbing details but also for the legal complexities it presents. On a recent episode of Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, our own Attorney Josh Kolsrud, a veteran trial lawyer and founder of Kolsrud Law Offices, weighed in on the evolving investigation. His commentary offers invaluable insights for anyone interested in criminal defense and the due process of law.

 

Missed Evidence and Its Ramifications

Josh Kolsrud immediately noted procedural concerns regarding the discovery of critical evidence—the Tesla key card found in a gutter near Burke’s home. He called out the fact that law enforcement failed to find this card during their initial search, describing this as “embarrassing” for the LAPD and potentially problematic for the prosecution.

 

“What I don't like about this, if I'm a prosecutor, is that the LAPD missed [the key card]. They were supposed to have gathered all the necessary evidence. I'm going to be pretty mad that they missed this.”

 

As a defense attorney, Mr. Kolsrud emphasized how such oversights could be leveraged to cast doubt on the integrity of the investigation:

 

“A defense attorney is going to come in and say, ‘Chain of custody—how do you know this wasn't placed after the police were there? How do you know this isn't somebody setting up David?’

 

When evidence is found after law enforcement has left the scene, questions arise about contamination and who might have had access during that window. Missing or mishandled evidence can become a crucial part of pre-trial motions and trial defense strategies, affecting admissibility or the weight given to forensic conclusions.

 

The Absence of Direct Evidence and the Importance of Presumption of Innocence

Kolsrud was clear: despite the gravity of the allegations swirling in the media, the presumption of innocence remains paramount.

 

“David Anthony Burke is innocent in the eyes of the law and remains innocent unless the presumption of innocence is pierced and overcome by evidence that proves him guilty.”

 

He highlighted the fact that, as of this writing, there is no direct evidence disclosed publicly that ties Burke to Celeste’s death:

 

“If the evidence was so compelling that David did this, why isn’t he charged? They don’t have direct evidence… The more information we get, it shows that so many people around him had access to that vehicle.”

 

This measured approach underscores the necessity of building a case based on facts rather than conjecture or public sentiment.

 

The “Too Dumb to Be Guilty” Argument

The panel discussed whether leaving a body so near one’s home could suggest either guilt or possible framing. Kolsrud addressed the “too dumb to be guilty” defense, noting the fallibility of criminal suspects but warning against making legal presumptions based on perceived intelligence:

 

“People do dumb things all the time. Criminals are not that smart. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be in jail. That’s why evidence—real, hard evidence—matters, not speculation about what seems likely or who seems clever.”

 

Media, Motive, and the Danger of Speculation

Mr. Kolsrud raised caution about media narratives linking Burke’s music or alter egos to a potential motive:

 

“Part of what the media is doing is saying how smart David is by foreshadowing in his music what he did in this case. If that’s true, he has some intelligence for doing that. So, if he’s so intelligent, why would someone leave the body… in the trunk of their car, yards away from their house? It just doesn’t make any sense.”

 

This highlights a central tenet of criminal defense: character, artistry, or public personas, no matter how dark, are not evidence of criminal activity. Defense attorneys vigilantly object to introducing creative works or unrelated behavior as evidence of criminal motive.

 

Invoking the Fifth: Exercising the Right to Remain Silent

Burke has not made any public statements regarding the case—a move many armchair analysts view as suspicious. Kolsrud explained why legal counsel often advises precisely this course:

 

“Everything that he’s done after the discovery of the body has been very intelligent. When you’re under scrutiny, you want to remain silent because everything you do is going to be viewed under the lens of a microscope.”

 

He clarified that this is not necessarily about “hiding something,” but about protecting one’s rights. In an era of rapid social media speculation, remaining silent is often in the best interest of a suspect or person of interest.

 

On Investigating Alternative Theories and Maintaining Objectivity

Lastly, Kolsrud emphasized the duty to consider all possibilities, no matter how remote, until the facts are fully established:

 

“We don’t know that somebody else didn’t do it. We don’t know if it was suicide. We don’t know if she overdosed. We don’t even know the cause of death at this point in time… What I’m afraid of is this turning into another case where, because the cause of death can’t be determined, there are no charges or a wrongful conviction.”

 

Conclusion

The investigation into Celeste Rivas’s death is far from over. As Attorney Josh Kolsrud has outlined, this case raises critical issues about evidence collection, legal rights, media narratives, and the presumption of innocence. As more forensic and digital evidence becomes available, Kolsrud Law Offices will continue to monitor the case closely and advocate for justice, transparency, and the protection of constitutional rights.

 

If you or a loved one are facing criminal investigation or charges, contact Kolsrud Law Offices for a confidential case evaluation. Protect your rights—don’t let speculation dictate your future.