DJ Akademiks Says Feds Put His ‘Life in Danger’ After Lil Durk Trial Mention
DJ Akademiks says federal prosecutors crossed a line when they pulled his name and facial reaction into Lil Durk’s federal murder-for-hire trial.
The media personality went off during a livestream after prosecutors used a clip from his interview with Durk while arguing their case.
Ak’s problem wasn’t simply that his podcast appeared in court.
He says prosecutors effectively created the impression that Durk confessed to something during their interview and that Akademiks understood exactly what he meant.
Ak strongly disputes that interpretation.
He says nobody from the government contacted him to ask what he understood during the interview and that treating his facial expression as confirmation of a supposed confession could make people believe he had somehow helped build the federal case.
His response was blunt:
“Throwing my name in here, saying I received confession only puts my life in danger.”
Akademiks stressed that he was not charged, was not a cooperating witness and was not called to testify in Durk’s trial. (Baller Alert)
And less than two days after Akademiks made those comments, the case took another massive turn.
Lil Durk was acquitted on all charges in the murder-for-hire trial on September 11, 2026. He remains in custody because he faces a separate racketeering and weapons trial scheduled for October 5. (Reuters)
Recent press photography used in coverage of Akademiks.
Image description: A real event photograph showing the hip-hop media personality at Complex’s List[ed] event in Las Vegas.
Why Is DJ Akademiks Angry?
Akademiks’ complaint is pretty simple.
He believes prosecutors used his reputation, his podcast and his reaction on camera to strengthen an argument he says they never verified with him.
During closing arguments, prosecutors played part of an old interview between Akademiks and Durk.
According to reporting from inside the case, prosecutors drew attention not only to Durk’s words but also to the way Akademiks reacted after hearing them. (PodScripts)
The government’s argument was essentially that Ak’s reaction showed that Durk’s comment carried a deeper meaning.
Akademiks says that is not what happened.
He has argued that his dramatic reaction was part of creating an entertaining podcast moment and promotional clip rather than evidence that he believed he had just heard an admission to a crime. (Daily Mast)
That difference matters.
A lot.
The Interview at the Centre of Everything
The clip comes from an Off The Record conversation between DJ Akademiks and Lil Durk.
During the discussion, Akademiks brought up the phrase “slide for Von.”
The phrase had circulated online after the November 2020 killing of Durk’s close friend and collaborator King Von.
Ak asked Durk about people previously posting those comments.
Durk responded that, for some reason, he wasn’t really seeing the comments anymore.
He then made a comment about there being:
“something in the water.”
That line became an important part of the government’s closing argument. (PodScripts)
Image description: Real screenshot from the Off The Record interview showing the rapper and podcast host speaking across studio microphones.
Why Did “Something in the Water” Become Such a Big Deal?
This is where the story gets complicated.
People online connected Durk’s comment to an entirely separate interview involving Quando Rondo.
In that earlier clip, Quando reportedly declined an already-open bottle of water because he was concerned there could be “something in the water.”
So when Durk later used similar wording while talking with Akademiks, people online started connecting the two moments.
Prosecutors also highlighted the Durk interview during the trial.
But there is an important distinction:
Durk never explicitly said the comment was about Quando Rondo.
The connection between the phrases was an interpretation, not an explicit statement from Durk confirming what he meant. (103.1 FM WEUP)
That ambiguity is a major part of why Akademiks is so angry about how the clip was presented.
Akademiks’ Facial Expression Became Part of the Argument
This might be the strangest part of the entire situation.
It wasn't only what Durk said.
Prosecutors also pointed to Akademiks' reaction.
A transcript of closing arguments describes prosecutors noting that Akademiks' eyes widened after Durk's statement and arguing that his reaction supported their interpretation of the exchange. (PodScripts)
Ak says that interpretation is unfair.
According to reporting on his response, Akademiks said his pause and reaction were intentionally exaggerated because they were trying to create an engaging podcast moment that could later be clipped and promoted. (Daily Mast)
In other words:
The prosecution saw evidence of meaning.
Akademiks says they were watching content creation.
“Nobody Ever Asked Me”
This is the point Akademiks kept coming back to.
If prosecutors genuinely believed his reaction proved that he understood Durk to be making a confession, Ak says they could have simply asked him.
According to Baller Alert, Akademiks said:
He wasn't a witness.
Nobody asked whether Durk confessed anything to him.
Nobody asked what he thought the comment meant at the time.
Prosecutors instead interpreted his facial expression themselves. (Baller Alert)
For Ak, that created an extremely uncomfortable situation.
He believes the public could walk away thinking:
“Durk confessed something to Akademiks.”
Or worse:
“Akademiks helped the government establish that confession.”
He insists neither characterization is accurate.
Why Akademiks Says His “Life Is in Danger”
Akademiks' biggest concern isn't simply his reputation.
He says it's his physical safety.
He argued that cooperating witnesses in major federal cases can potentially receive protections that ordinary media personalities do not.
Akademiks described himself as a civilian with no criminal involvement in the case and said his personal information is easy to find online. (Baller Alert)
His fear is that somebody connected to the wider situation could eventually blame him for the prosecution's use of the interview.
That is why he believes portraying him as someone who received a supposed murder confession is dangerous.
Ak stressed that he isn't asking people to believe Durk was guilty or innocent.
His argument is specifically about how prosecutors portrayed his role.
Promotional portrait used in current coverage of Akademiks.
Image description: Real promotional photograph of the media personality wearing a blue jacket and black cap.
What Was Lil Durk Accused Of?
The case stemmed from an August 2022 shooting in Los Angeles.
Federal prosecutors alleged that Durk, whose legal name is Durk Banks, arranged and financed a plot to kill rapper Quando Rondo, whose legal name is Tyquian Bowman.
Prosecutors said the alleged attack was retaliation for the 2020 killing of King Von.
Quando survived.
His cousin Saviay’a Robinson, also known as Lul Pab, was killed. (Reuters)
Durk consistently pleaded not guilty.
His lawyers argued that he did not order the attack and instead pointed to a former assistant as the person responsible for organising it. (Reuters)
The Government Used Music, Messages and Interviews
The Akademiks clip was only one part of a much larger federal case.
Prosecutors relied on:
Witness testimony
Text messages
Travel arrangements
Hotel bookings
Music lyrics
Videos
Interviews
Evidence involving members of Durk's OTF circle
The prosecution argued that all of those pieces created a larger picture suggesting Durk was behind the attack.
The defense argued prosecutors were trying to turn unrelated lyrics, statements and associations into proof of a murder conspiracy.
That disagreement ultimately went to the jury.
Courtroom imagery used during reporting on the federal case.
Image description: Real courtroom photograph showing the rapper seated with his legal team during earlier proceedings.
Durk’s Lawyers Tried to Reopen the Evidence
After prosecutors highlighted the Akademiks interview in closing arguments, Durk's defense team attempted to respond.
His lawyers reportedly filed an emergency request asking the judge to reopen evidence so jurors could see additional context from the interview.
They argued that a longer portion could provide a different understanding of what was happening.
U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald denied that request after deliberations had begun.
Reports on the ruling noted that lawyers' closing arguments themselves are not evidence. (Daily Mast)
Akademiks still wasn't happy.
From his perspective, once the idea that he had witnessed some form of confession was introduced publicly, the potential damage had already been done.
Akademiks Had Been Covering the Trial Himself
Another strange layer to the story is that Akademiks had spent significant time covering Durk's trial.
His website, The Akademy, published court transcripts and updates throughout proceedings, while Ak discussed developments extensively during livestreams. (The Akademy)
So he went from reporting on the federal trial...
to suddenly having his own old interview discussed inside it.
Even before closing arguments, Akademiks had noted that prosecutors had entered the interview into evidence and repeatedly referenced it. (PodScripts)
But it was the government's closing argument that caused him to publicly erupt.
Then Came the Verdict
Akademiks made his public complaints while jurors were considering the case.
Then on Friday, September 11:
Lil Durk was found not guilty.
The jury deliberated for three days before acquitting him of all charges in this particular murder-for-hire case. (AP News)
His co-defendants Deandre Wilson and David Lindsey were also acquitted of the murder-for-hire charges, although they were convicted of separate stalking-related offenses. (Reuters)
Supporters gathered outside the downtown Los Angeles courthouse after the verdict. (Reuters)
Real courtroom photograph from proceedings surrounding the federal case.
Image description: Close-up courtroom image showing the rapper during earlier legal proceedings.
Does the Acquittal Mean Lil Durk Is Going Home?
No.
This is one of the most important details in the story.
Durk was acquitted in the Los Angeles murder-for-hire case, but he remains in federal custody.
Reuters reports that he faces another trial beginning:
October 5, 2026
That separate case involves murder-related racketeering and weapons charges. (Reuters)
So although the September 11 verdict was a major legal victory, Durk's federal legal problems are not over.
The Lil Durk and Akademiks Timeline
| Date | What Happened |
|---|---|
| November 2020 | King Von is killed in Atlanta |
| August 2022 | Quando Rondo is targeted in a Los Angeles shooting; his cousin Saviay’a Robinson is killed |
| 2023 | Durk appears in a long-form interview with Akademiks |
| October 2024 | Durk is arrested by federal authorities |
| August 2026 | Murder-for-hire trial begins in Los Angeles |
| During trial | Prosecutors introduce and discuss Akademiks' interview |
| Sept. 8 | Closing arguments highlight Durk's words and Akademiks' reaction |
| Sept. 9-10 | Akademiks publicly says prosecutors endangered him |
| Sept. 11 | Jury acquits Durk on all charges in the murder-for-hire case |
| Oct. 5 | Durk is scheduled to face a separate federal racketeering trial |
Why This Story Matters Beyond Akademiks
The controversy raises an interesting question about modern hip-hop media.
Artists now speak for hours on:
Podcasts
Livestreams
YouTube interviews
Instagram Live
Kick
Twitch
Every facial expression is recorded.
Every joke can be clipped.
Every vague statement can be replayed years later.
And, as this case demonstrated, those moments can eventually appear inside a courtroom.
For media personalities like Akademiks, that creates a difficult position.
They want artists to speak openly.
But they may have little control over how those conversations are interpreted later by law enforcement, lawyers or juries.
Akademiks Says He Was Just Doing His Job
Ak's larger point is that he was interviewing a rapper.
He wasn't conducting an interrogation.
He wasn't working with investigators.
And according to him, he had no secret understanding that Durk was supposedly admitting involvement in a homicide.
That is why he became so angry about the word confession.
From Ak's perspective, describing the interaction that way transforms him from:
media personality conducting an interview
into:
person who heard something incriminating and understood what it meant.
He says that is not what happened.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was DJ Akademiks mentioned in Lil Durk's trial?
Prosecutors used part of an old interview between Akademiks and Durk while making their argument about Durk's alleged motive and statements. (PodScripts)
What did Lil Durk say during the Akademiks interview?
Durk discussed no longer seeing certain “slide for Von” comments and made a remark about there being “something in the water.” Prosecutors argued the exchange had deeper significance. (DancehallMag)
Did Lil Durk confess to DJ Akademiks?
Akademiks strongly denies that he received a murder confession. Durk did not explicitly state in the quoted exchange that he was admitting involvement in the 2022 shooting. (Daily Mast)
Why does Akademiks say prosecutors endangered him?
He believes portraying him as someone who received a confession could make people connected to the case think he knowingly contributed to the government's prosecution. (Baller Alert)
Was Akademiks a witness?
No. Reporting says he was not called as a witness and was not charged in connection with the case. (Baller Alert)
Was Lil Durk found guilty?
No. On September 11, 2026, a federal jury acquitted Lil Durk of all charges in this murder-for-hire case. (Reuters)
Is Lil Durk free now?
No. He remains in custody because he faces a separate federal racketeering and weapons trial scheduled for October 5. (Reuters)
Who was the alleged target of the 2022 shooting?
Federal prosecutors said rapper Quando Rondo was the intended target. His cousin Saviay’a Robinson was killed. (Reuters)
Final Thoughts
DJ Akademiks has spent years reporting on rappers' arrests, indictments and trials.
This time, the courtroom discussion reached back into his own podcast.
And he clearly wasn't comfortable with it.
Ak's position is that prosecutors took an entertainment interview, interpreted Durk's vague statement, interpreted Akademiks' facial expression and then presented that interpretation as something far more serious.
To Akademiks, that created a dangerous narrative:
That Durk confessed to him.
That he understood the confession.
And that his interview somehow helped the government prove it.
He says none of that was ever verified with him.
Then came the biggest twist.
The jury ultimately rejected the government's case and acquitted Lil Durk on every charge in the murder-for-hire trial. (AP News)
That doesn't erase Akademiks' concern about how his name was used.
And it doesn't end Durk's legal battle.
But it makes an already strange chapter of the case even stranger.
Akademiks started the week covering one of hip-hop's biggest federal trials.
By the end of it, he was arguing that prosecutors had turned him into part of the story.
Sources
Baller Alert reported Akademiks' detailed response, including his claim that prosecutors used his facial reaction without ever contacting him and his concern about being exposed to danger. (Baller Alert)
Daily Mast reported on the government's use of the interview, the defense's attempt to introduce more context and Akademiks' explanation that his reaction was created for entertainment rather than confirmation of a confession. (Daily Mast)
Reuters and the Associated Press confirmed that Lil Durk was acquitted of all charges in the murder-for-hire trial on September 11 and remains in custody pending a separate October 5 case. (Reuters)
Last updated: September 12, 2026.
