- 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:
