Lil Durk is still being held in solitary confinement, where he’s reportedly remained for the past four months, allegedly due to an Apple Watch.
On Tuesday (Jan. 6), the jailed rapper’s legal team filed a motion requesting a status hearing, claiming he has been held “without process,” which they argue violates federal regulations and could also breach the Eighth Amendment.
In the filing, Lil Durk’s attorney, Christy O’Connor, stated that the rapper has spent 131 days in solitary confinement with no access to the commissary and is limited to just one phone call per month, with no in-person visits allowed.
According to O’Connor, the decision to place him in isolation followed claims that the Chicago artist was found “in possession of an unauthorized Apple Watch.”
“[Lil Durk] is confined to a very small jail cell, just large enough for a single bed, a toilet, and a sink,” O’Connor added. “The harmful effects of prolonged solitary confinement on an inmate’s mental health are well documented.”
The rapper’s attorneys also claim the Bureau of Prisons and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center, where he’s currently housed, have offered inconsistent explanations for why he’s remained in isolation for such an extended period.
According to the filing, an attorney initially stated that Lil Durk’s placement had nothing to do with his celebrity status. However, months later, the warden allegedly told the defense that the rapper was considered a risk to the general population because of the high-profile nature of his case and possible rule violations.
In challenging the prolonged solitary confinement, Lil Durk’s legal team pointed to research highlighting the psychological harm linked to long-term isolation, including social withdrawal, anxiety, and depression.
The murder-for-hire case against Lil Durk has faced several complications in recent months. Back in October, prosecutors submitted a motion requesting an anonymous jury, citing safety concerns and pointing to the rapper’s “vast resources” and influence over the OTF label.
This week, both prosecutors and co-defendants also asked for a delay that would move the trial start date from Jan. 20 to May 4.
