Lil Durk Walked Free on All Charges. His Co-Defendants Are Still Fighting Stalking Convictions, and Prosecutors Just Filed 31 Pages to Keep Them.

Lil Durk was acquitted on all five counts at his trial back in September, and that part of this case is fully closed. What’s not closed is what happened to the two men tried alongside him, and the federal government just filed a serious response making clear they intend to keep those convictions standing.

Deandre “DeDe” Wilson and David “Browneyez” Lindsey were both convicted on three counts of stalking at that same September 11th trial, while both were acquitted on the murder-for-hire charges, the same charges Durk beat entirely. The underlying case goes back to August 19th, 2022, a shooting in Los Angeles that killed Saviay’a “Lul Pab” Robinson. The actual target, according to prosecutors, was Tyquian “Quando Rondo” Bowman, who survived. The government’s theory is that the defendants tracked Bowman’s movements across Los Angeles in the lead-up to the shooting.

Wilson and Lindsey’s lawyers asked Judge Michael Fitzgerald for either full acquittal or a new trial, and their core argument is a genuinely interesting legal one, not just a standard appeal. They’re arguing that a secret plot doesn’t actually meet the federal legal definition of stalking, because the statute is generally built around a victim being aware they’re being followed or harassed, and Bowman reportedly had no idea he was being tracked until the moment of the attack itself. Their position is that what happened here describes a surprise ambush, not stalking in the legal sense, and that the two things aren’t the same crime even if the end result looks similar.

Prosecutors filed a 31-page response on October 14th pushing back hard on that exact distinction. Their argument centers on how the statute actually defines “course of conduct,” specifically that it only requires two or more acts, and critically, that none of those acts need to be known to the victim at the time. In other words, the law as written doesn’t require the target to know they’re being surveilled for it to still count as stalking under the statute. They also pointed to the part of the law covering conduct that “causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause” substantial emotional distress, arguing the scheme both caused Robinson’s death and caused Bowman severe distress once he learned what had actually happened to him.

There’s a separate and genuinely heavier argument buried in that filing too, specifically about Robinson, the person who was actually killed. Prosecutors argued a reasonable jury could find the defendants intended to stalk Robinson as well, not just Bowman, pointing to the fact that they fired into an occupied SUV they knew contained her. That’s a meaningful distinction, because it means the stalking convictions aren’t just resting on the intended target who survived, they’re also being argued as covering the person who didn’t.

Lindsey’s new-trial motion raised additional issues beyond the stalking definition itself, challenging being tried in the same proceeding as the other defendants, specific evidence that was allowed in, and how the jury was instructed. Prosecutors opposed all of that too, leaning on travel records, phone data, video evidence, and witness accounts as the foundation for why the convictions should hold.

Both defendants’ attorneys have said they’re continuing the fight, so this isn’t resolved yet, Judge Fitzgerald still has to rule on the actual motions. But it’s worth sitting with what’s actually at stake in this specific legal argument, separate from how anyone feels about the broader case. If courts accept the defense’s reading, that stalking legally requires the victim’s awareness, it would meaningfully narrow how prosecutors can charge covert surveillance and tracking that precedes a violent act, even when the planning itself is extensive and documented. If courts side with the government’s reading instead, it confirms that a hidden, undetected pattern of tracking someone can still count as stalking under federal law, regardless of whether the victim ever knew it was happening until it was too late. That question is bigger than this one case, and it’s exactly why both sides are fighting this hard over two convictions in a case where the lead defendant already walked free.