FOLLOW US

The allegations have names now.

In Part 1 of this investigative series, USA Herald examined the renewed and un-retracted corruption claims made by DJ Vlad. In Part 2, we turn to the individual at the center of those claims — the judge who presided over the criminal trial of Tory Lanez.

That judge is David V. Herriford, a longtime member of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Before speculation overtakes record, the public deserves clarity about who he is, how he came to the bench, and what is verifiable.

The Public Record

Judge David V. Herriford has served on the Los Angeles County Superior Court since 2010. His current term runs through January 6, 2031. He was most recently re-elected in March 2024 in a nonpartisan race that was canceled due to a lack of challengers — a standard procedure under California’s judicial election system for unopposed incumbents.

Herriford earned both his undergraduate degree and his law degree from Stanford University. His career path includes service as a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles County from 1984 to 1989, followed by years in private practice before his judicial appointment.

In the Lanez case, Herriford presided over:

• The 2022 jury trial
• The denial of a motion for new trial in May 2023
• The August 2023 sentencing
• Related post-conviction proceedings

Public appellate records indicate that the conviction and sentence were upheld in 2025.

There is no publicly available disciplinary finding, ethics sanction, or appellate ruling identifying judicial misconduct in connection with this case.

What Is Being Alleged

DJ Vlad has alleged that the presiding judge had a familial connection that may have created a conflict of interest — specifically that the judge’s grandson allegedly received a musical contribution from Jay-Z.

The implication is that such a relationship, if undisclosed, could suggest bias or an appearance of impropriety.

At this stage, that allegation remains unverified.

There is no public court filing, ethics complaint, or disclosure document confirming the existence of such a collaboration. California judges are subject to the Code of Judicial Ethics, which requires disqualification where impartiality might reasonably be questioned. If a financial or personal relationship existed and was not disclosed, that would raise significant procedural issues.

But as of publication, no such documentation has surfaced.

Understanding California’s Judicial Structure

California Superior Court judges are elected in nonpartisan races. If an incumbent runs unopposed, their name does not appear on the ballot and they are automatically re-elected. That was the case in both 2018 and 2024 for Judge Herriford.

Judges must have at least ten years of experience as a lawyer or judge. Herriford met those qualifications long before taking the bench.

The chief judge of a Superior Court is selected by peer vote, but Herriford’s role in the Lanez case was that of a trial judge — not an appellate justice, not a policymaker, and not a political appointee operating outside standard judicial channels.

These structural facts matter. They frame the institutional context in which the allegations have been made.

Where the Paper Trail Would Lead

If DJ Vlad’s claims are to move beyond rhetoric, the verification path is straightforward: