Drake’s lawyers have filed a motion to avoid deposition in the ongoing murder trial of Florida rapper XXXTentacion.
Jahseh Onfroy, better known by his stage name XXXTentacion, was shot dead in 2018 during an armed robbery at Riva Motorsports in Pompano Beach, Florida. The controversial but growing hip-hop sensation’s SoundCloud presence propelled him to prominence.
XXXTentacion’s murder was allegedly committed by Trayvon Newsome, Dedrick Williams, Robert Allen, and Michael Boatwright.
According to court documents, Allen acknowledged his role, pled guilty to second-degree murder, and volunteered to testify against the other accused. The other three have pleaded not guilty.
Defence lawyer Mauricio Padilla, representing Dedrick Williams, has alleged that Drake is connected to XXXTentacion’s death. At the end of January, he allegedly attempted to subpoena Drake for a deposition in which he would provide testimony under oath. However, the God’s Plan hitmaker failed to show up. A judge directed the rapper to appear in court or give a deposition on February 24.
So, how Drake’s name popped up in the murder trial?
Drake was mentioned on XXXTentacion’s Instagram account months before the rapper’s passing. “If anyone tries to kill me, it was @champagnepapi [Drake]. I’m snitching RN,” the post said. However, XXXTentacion immediately removed the message and claimed to have been hacked.
In 2017, XXXTentacion and Drake got into a mainly one-sided fight in which the “Hotline Bling” singer was accused of imitating his rapping technique. Drake refuted the charge.
False Accusation?
Drake’s lawyer Bradford Cohen questioned why his client was dragged into the case in the first place.
“In a case such as this, it is both unreasonable and oppressive to subpoena an out-of-state party who has not been mentioned in any reports, any investigation, or referenced to have any involvement in this matter,” Cohen wrote in the court filing.
“No evidence has been provided to substantiate the assertion that the Non-Party in any way contributed to, had knowledge of, or participated in the alleged incident, and to mandate that he appear for deposition for something that he very clearly has no relevant knowledge of is unreasonable.”
