Tupac Shakur murder trial begins in Las Vegas as prosecutors lay out an account and witnesses still refuse to testify

A murder trial tied to the long unsolved killing of Tupac Shakur opened in Las Vegas as prosecutors sought to provide, for the first time in court, what they described as a detailed official account of the rapper’s 1996 death, even as some witnesses continued to refuse to testify, according to The Guardian’s reporting on day one of the case.

Duane “Keffe D” Davis, 63, a former South Side Compton Crips gang leader, is accused in connection with the fatal shooting that killed Shakur in a September 1996 drive-by attack in Las Vegas. The case has drawn renewed public attention decades after Shakur’s death, with lawsuits, competing theories, and conspiracies emerging over the years.

On the first day of trial, lawyers for the prosecution described the evidence they say connects Davis to Shakur’s killing, and the court heard presentations aimed at establishing a timeline and narrative that, prosecutors said, reflects the events of that September night. The Guardian reported that prosecutors are asking the jury to rely on the account they are presenting as official rather than speculative.

The proceedings have also been shaped by the conduct of witnesses. Even as prosecutors and lawyers laid out their respective versions of events, the reporting said some witnesses have still refused to testify. That refusal has limited how certain parts of the story can be presented directly through witness testimony, potentially affecting what evidence the jury is able to hear.

The trial is unfolding in a community setting where Shakur’s death remains a major cultural reference point, and the case is also operating within a courtroom environment where witnesses’ decisions can become a central procedural issue. Courtroom refusals, when they occur, can influence how prosecutors handle testimony, whether through alternative evidence, prior statements, or other mechanisms permitted by law.

Because the case involves events from nearly three decades ago, lawyers on both sides are working from the record that remains available, including whatever physical evidence, documents, or prior accounts can be admitted under the rules of evidence. The Guardian’s report framed the current trial as part of a larger effort to bring a long-debated matter into a formal adjudication process rather than continuing as a dispute fueled by outside claims.

A key next step will be how the prosecution proceeds once the jury hears the evidence that is available despite witness refusals, and whether additional testimony or exhibits can fill gaps that might otherwise have been covered by live witnesses. The Guardian’s coverage indicated that the case is still early in its first phase, with day one focused on laying out the prosecution’s account and addressing the reality that some witnesses will not participate in testimony.

The trial also underscores how high-profile cultural figures can remain entangled with ongoing criminal cases long after their deaths, with family and public attention persisting while courts work through issues like witness availability and admissibility of evidence under criminal procedure rules.