Lil Durk is facing new resistance from federal prosecutors, who argue that the threatening voicemails tied to his case were not severe enough to justify removing the judge or disqualifying the prosecution team, nor were they serious enough to require an immediate notification to his lawyers.
Durk’s team insists the court and government hid key information when they failed to disclose four voicemails left for Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue.
Prosecutors acknowledge the voicemails existed but argue they do not rise to the level of bias or partiality required for recusal. They point to long-standing federal precedent that treats threatening calls as attempts to manipulate the system, not proof that a judge cannot rule fairly.
“The law is clear that ‘threats or other attempts to intimidate the judge’ do ‘not ordinarily require recusal,'” prosecutors wrote.
The government states that the calls originated from unknown third parties, not Durk, and did not pose a genuine risk that the judge or courthouse personnel would be influenced in a manner that harmed the defendants.
Prosecutors argue the messages never reached a level where the court was compromised or where the public could reasonably question the judge’s neutrality.
They also pushed back on the idea that keeping the voicemails from Durk’s lawyers was improper.
Prosecutors argue that there was no legal requirement to notify the defense because the threats targeted the judge, not any evidence in the case, and did not impact the government’s handling of the charges.
Their response states that the court was informed through proper channels and that the messages had no impact on the rulings or strategy.
Prosecutors also argue they moved quickly to assess the calls through the U.S. Marshals Service and FBI, which they say confirmed the threats as attempts to influence the case rather than genuine danger.
They say Durk’s request to pause the entire case and bring in an outside judge would reward whoever made the calls, creating a path for anonymous callers to derail federal trials at will.
“Following defendants’ reasoning, any time a district or magistrate judge in a district is threatened, regardless of the circumstances of the threat, defendants would be allowed to disqualify all judges,” prosecutors wrote.
Durk’s lawyers maintain that the secrecy violated due process and compromised the fairness of the case. Prosecutors say nothing about the voicemails changed the court’s decisions and the defense is overstating their importance.
The fight arrives as Durk faces charges tied to a murder-for-hire plot targeting Savannah rapper Quando Rondo.
Prosecutors say the planned attack was retaliation for the 2020 encounter that left King Von dead and resulted in the killing of Lul Pab, a close associate, fueling the feud behind the federal case.