Who Fired the Shots That Killed Tupac? Keffe D Testimony Deepens Mystery

A former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent told jurors that Duane “Keffe D” Davis once described who held the gun and who fired in the 1996 drive-by that killed Tupac Shakur, putting Davis at the center of the plot even if not the trigger man.

Story Snapshot

Ex-FBI agent Wade Lee recounted a 1998 proffer where Davis detailed the gun handoff and shooting sequence.
Forensic testimony confirmed Tupac died from multiple gunshots in a Las Vegas drive-by on September 7, 1996.
Grand jury reporting suggests Deandre “Big Dre” Smith may have fired after Davis passed the gun, raising role questions.
Davis has pleaded not guilty and says past statements were for money or not authored by him.

What the jury heard about the 1998 proffer

Wade Lee, a retired FBI special agent, testified that Davis gave a detailed account during a July 16, 1998 proffer. Lee said an FBI FD-302 report captured Davis claiming he first had the gun, handed it to an associate in the back seat, and that shots were then fired into the BMW carrying Tupac Shakur. Prosecutors argue this shows orchestration, access to a weapon, and planning within a gang circle. The account came from Lee’s summary, not a recording, which the defense highlights.

Court coverage also described Lee’s background working Los Angeles gang cases and identifying Davis as a person of interest in those investigations. Prosecutors used that to argue Davis had motive and the network to carry out a fast retaliation after a casino fight that night. Lee’s testimony fits a pattern in old cases that lean on proffers and prior statements when fresh physical evidence is limited or gone. The court admitted portions of these statements into evidence for jurors to weigh.

Physical evidence and timeline from the scene

Crime scene and medical experts mapped the drive-by shooting and its results. A crime scene analyst walked jurors through preserved evidence bags and photos from September 7, 1996. A forensic pathologist explained that Tupac died from multiple gunshot wounds that matched a side-approach firing into the passenger area. This testimony supports the state’s core timeline and the mechanics of the attack. It does not, by itself, identify the gunman or the person who ordered the hit.

These forensic details matter because they lock in what happened and when. They also create a frame to test each witness story. If the angles, bullet paths, and vehicle positions line up with a handed-off gun and right-side firing lane, it helps the state’s narrative. If not, the defense gains room to argue doubt. So far, the courtroom record says the physical story and the prosecution theory run in the same lane on time, place, and method of attack.

Disputed roles and the shooter question

A local outlet reported grand jury material suggesting Deandre “Big Dre” Smith, not Orlando Anderson, may have fired when Anderson lacked a clear shot, after Davis allegedly passed the gun. That detail supports the idea of coordination inside the car but raises fresh questions about who pulled the trigger. Differences across public accounts make the role map complex. The prosecution’s charge focuses on alleged orchestration, not on proving Davis himself fired the shots.

🚨 TUPAC TRIAL — KEY TESTIMONY

A 2008 police interview with Duane “Keffe D” Davis has become a major piece of evidence for the prosecution.

Davis told detectives that Orlando “Baby Lane” Anderson fired the shots that killed Tupac and said he was inside the white Cadillac during…

— Trial Watch (@TrialWatchHQ) August 21, 2026

The defense leans on those gaps. Defense questions highlighted that Lee’s team was not running the original homicide and did not verify every location claim tied to Davis. They also stressed that the most damaging account is an agent-written summary, not a verbatim tape. Without phone logs, payments, or a direct order on record, they argue the state is stretching old gang talk into a murder plan. Jurors must decide how much weight to give Davis’s claimed admissions versus his denials.

Why this trial taps wider trust concerns

This case shows how late prosecutions often rest on old statements, not new forensic breakthroughs. Many Americans doubt systems that take decades to act, then lean on partial files and selective disclosures. Here, jurors are hearing sworn courtroom testimony, but much of it traces back to proffers and later interviews. That invites concern across the spectrum about reliability, power, and whether the truth can survive a 30-year delay in a high-profile, gang-linked killing.

What to watch next inside the courtroom

Watch for more witnesses who can either confirm or undercut the gun-passing sequence. Pay attention to any records that place specific people in Las Vegas that night. Look for cross-exams that test Lee’s 302 account line by line. The prosecution aims to show a tight chain from the casino fight to a planned hit. The defense aims to turn contradictions and authorship disputes into reasonable doubt. The verdict will likely hinge on how jurors judge Davis’s own words.