Introduction

More than six years after the untimely death of rapper XXXTentacion (real name Jahseh Onfroy), one of the convicted perpetrators, Dedrick Williams, is challenging his murder conviction—by invoking Drake. In a bold legal maneuver, Williams’ defense is not claiming Drake was the shooter, but alleging investigators failed to thoroughly explore the rapper’s possible involvement. This development has reignited conspiracy debates, spotlighting the clash between celebrity culture and courtroom procedure.

The Case at a Glance

On June 18, 2018, XXXTentacion was shot and killed during what authorities describe as an attempted armed robbery outside RIVA Motorsports in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Surveillance footage, cell phone data, and DNA evidence led to the convictions of Michael Boatwright, Trayvon Newsome, and Dedrick Williams. Boatwright was identified as the shooter, while Williams was seen as the orchestrator. All three received life sentences without parole in April 2023

New Legal Maneuver: Suggesting Investigative Oversight

In November 2024, Williams’ attorney,Mauricio Padilla, filed an appeal arguing that Williams did not receive a fair trial because authorities neglected to pursue a potential alternate suspect: Drake. According to Padilla, the defense had prepared a witness list—including multiple rappers familiar with the feud between XXXTentacion and artists associated with Drake’s OVO label—but the court struck it from consideration. Williams’ team is now asserting this omission was improper and prejudicial

Padilla underscores that this defense is not accusing Drake of murder—rather, it’s about highlighting the failure to investigate all relevant leads and establish reasonable doubt

Feud, Instagram, and Theories

The controversy largely stems from unfinished business between XXXTentacion and Drake. In early 2018, XXXTentacion posted (and later deleted) on Instagram: “If anyone tries to kill me it was @champagnepapi. I’m snitching RN.” He subsequently attributed the post to hacking

This, combined with public rap beef and provocative lyrics, has long fueled speculative theories online. Padilla invoked those posts and the feud as evidence that authorities did not probe properly, despite the lack of concrete connection

In local and fan community discussions—especially on Reddit—theories abound. One user pointed to lyrics and song timing, while others called attention to the Instagram post and perceived lyrical hints as fueling suspicion  Yet, these claims remain entirely speculative and unsupported by law enforcement.

Defense Strategy: Raising Reasonable Doubt

Padilla’s approach is twofold:

Procedural Fairness: Challenge the legality of excluding defense witnesses by pointing out that witnesses were broadly struck without itemization—contrary to proper legal standards

Alternate Shooter Defense: Argue that the jury lacked exposure to all viable narratives—namely, a feud-influenced defendant—thereby undermining confidence in the verdict

This maneuver is not about proving Drake’s guilt but rather demonstrating that reasonable doubt might exist if all evidence had been considered.

Reception and Skepticism

The appeal has reignited online debate—and widespread skepticism. Many analysts and fans see this as a fringe conspiracy, unlikely to sway appellate judges. Even Wack100, a hip-hop commentator, dismissed the idea of Drake orchestrating murder over rap rivalry as implausible and not consistent with Drake’s profile

Though the Instagram post and animosity between the artists are real, critics note that no credible evidence ties Drake to violent intent, and challenging credibility often revolves around public narrative loops rather than factual substance.

Legal Implications

This appeal raises important legal questions:

Did the trial court improperly limit defense evidence? If so, this could be grounds for a new trial—even if the excluded material doesn’t ultimately prove guilt.

Is invoking a feud or social media post enough to justify adding an alternate suspect theory? Typically, courts require concrete links—not speculative associations.

Will this strategy succeed? Williams faces an uphill battle. Appellate courts are cautious about ordering retrials based on ideological or internet-driven claims unless clear procedural errors are shown.

Contextualizing the Feud

It’s notable that XXXTentacion’s Instagram post naming Drake came amid public accusations of artistic theft—he accused Drake of copying his flow from “Look At Me!”, an early rise-to-fame track The post’s ambiguity and its quick deletion add complexity, but without forensic or testimonial backing, it remains hearsay.

What Comes Next

Williams’ appeal is currently in motion; it’s unclear whether the appellate court will grant relief. Even if unsuccessful, the appeal serves as a reminder of how celebrity culture intersects with legal proceedings—where social bias and public drama can shadow serious jurisprudence.

This case also highlights broader questions:

Do high-profile individuals and fan communities distort legal processes?

Should investigations include speculative leads, or only evidence-based leads?

How do courts manage narratives shaped by social media and rumor in criminal defense?

Conclusion

Dedrick Williams’ appeal—centered on prosecutorial oversight of Drake’s potential involvement—has reopened longstanding controversies surrounding XXXTentacion’s death. While it’s unlikely this strategy will endure as factual, its legal premise hinges on the right to present a complete defense. As appellate judges weigh the appeal, the case exemplifies the tension between trial procedure and cultural mythology, and how the personal conflicts of public figures can echo tragically in courtrooms.