Lil Durk is pushing back against federal prosecutors in California who want to keep jurors anonymous in his high-profile murder-for-hire case, arguing the move would unfairly damage his right to a fair trial.

In a newly filed court motion, attorneys for the Chicago rapper—whose legal name is Durk Banks—called the government’s request “unnecessary” and based on speculation rather than evidence.

Prosecutors claim jurors could face threats or harassment due to Durk’s celebrity status and the violent nature of the charges, citing anonymous phone calls and online chatter from unnamed “supporters.”

Durk’s legal team, led by attorney Drew Findling, dismissed those concerns.

“An anonymous jury would undercut transparency and fairness in these proceedings and would be inconsistent with Mr. Banks’ presumption of innocence,” Findling wrote. “Such a drastic measure is justified only when there is a strong reason to believe that anonymity is necessary to protect jurors or the integrity of the trial, and even then, only when accompanied by reasonable safeguards to mitigate prejudice.”

The 31-year-old artist is charged with conspiracy, murder-for-hire resulting in death and use of a firearm during a violent crime. Prosecutors allege he orchestrated a retaliatory hit after the 2020 killing of his close friend King Von, who died during a confrontation with rapper Quando Rondo’s crew in Atlanta.

The Justice Department claims that in 2022, Durk’s associates traveled from Chicago to Los Angeles with the intent to target Rondo. Instead, they allegedly killed his cousin, Saviay’a “Lul Pab” Robinson, outside a gas station in Beverly Grove.

Prosecutors argue that keeping juror identities hidden is essential to ensure impartiality and protect them from possible threats. They cited Durk’s fame, the seriousness of the charges and the intense online attention surrounding the case.

Durk’s defense team said they are not opposed to withholding juror names from the public, but they insist that defense counsel must have access to those identities. They also emphasized that all defendants and alleged co-conspirators are already in custody, eliminating any credible threat to jurors.

“Anonymity would convey to jurors that Mr. Banks is inherently dangerous, infringe upon his presumption of innocence, and prejudice the defense in the most fundamental of ways,” Findling stated. “The government’s motion conflates generalized fears of publicity with actual threats of juror harm. None exist. Mr. Banks has no history of interference with the judicial process, no record of violence against witnesses or jurors, and no connection to organized crime.”

The defense argued that anonymous juries are typically reserved for cases involving organized crime or proven attempts to tamper with witnesses—neither of which applies here.

They also warned that shielding juror identities could skew the selection process and create bias. “An anonymous jury signals guilt before the first question is asked,” the motion read.

As an alternative, Durk’s lawyers proposed using juror numbers in open court, sealing names for attorneys only and explaining the anonymity as a way to protect jurors from media attention, not from the defendant.

If the court approves the government’s request, jurors would be allowed to use pseudonyms and receive extra security protections. The judge has not yet issued a ruling on the matter.

Durk remains in federal custody after being denied bail in May. The court cited alleged violations involving phone use while in detention. If convicted, he could face life in prison.