Bars Behind Bars: When Song Lyrics Become Criminal Evidence

by Joshua Smith, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 94

I. Introduction

In May 2022, rapper Young Thug, whose birth name is Jeffrey Williams (“Williams”), was indicted alongside members of his label, Young Stoner Life (“YSL”).¹ Williams was charged with conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act.² Prosecutors sought to introduce their rap lyrics as evidence of criminal activity, which was later permitted.³ It has long been established that courts must carefully balance the probative value of evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice.⁴ State v. Adams, the case involving Young Thug, ultimately considered this balance when applied to artistic expression through song lyrics.

This Article will examine how the Young Thug and YSL prosecution highlights the tension between the probative use of artistic expression in court and the constitutional protections afforded to free speech. Part II provides background on the Young Thug YSL prosecution and the Fulton County Superior Court’s ruling regarding the admissibility of rap lyrics and situates the case within broader debates on free speech protections and the evidentiary principles that govern the balance between probative value and unfair prejudice. Part III discusses the evidentiary framework governing admissibility of introducing rap lyrics at trial, the racial and cultural implications, and key legal authorities including previously decided cases and newly proposed legislation. Finally, Part IV concludes by reexamining the balance between protecting fair trial rights and artistic expression under the First Amendment.

II. Background

A. Young Thug’s Prosecution

In 2022, Williams faced charges of conspiring to violate the RICO Act and participating in criminal street gang activity. To show a pattern of racketeering under the RICO Act, the following elements must be met: (i) there must be at least two acts that would qualify as racketeering activity; (ii) the acts must have occurred within ten years of each activity; (iii) the acts must be related to each other or part of a common scheme; and (iv) the acts must pose a threat of ongoing or expanding criminal activity.⁵ Prosecutors argued that some of Williams’ song lyrics constituted an “overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy” to violate RICO, because the lyrics mention various descriptions of criminal activities that allegedly took place.⁶ Fulton County Prosecutor, Fani Willis, asserted that admitting to a crime—whether in conversation or through a song—can be used as evidence against a defendant, regardless of whether it is delivered over a beat.⁷

Williams’s defense filed a motion arguing that introducing lyrics as admissible evidence in a criminal trial could blur the line between reality and artistic expression, potentially leading to discrimination and prejudicing the jury against the defendant.⁸ Fulton County Superior Court Chief Justice, Ural Glanville, ultimately ruled that 17 of Williams’s songs and their lyrics could be used against him, so long as the prosecution could show that the lyrics related to crimes Williams and others were accused of committing.⁹ The defense maintained that this constituted an invasion on First Amendment free speech protections; however, the Fulton County Superior Court reasoned that the prosecution was not targeting the songs themselves, but rather, the alleged criminal activity reflected in them as proof of culpability.¹⁰

Some of the song lyrics admitted as evidence included, “Hey, YSL shit, hey killin’ 12 shit, hey, fuck a jail shit, cooking white brick,” and “I escaped every one of the licks cause I was supposed to be rich, I don’t care nothing bout no cop, I’m tellin’ you just how it is.”¹¹ A portion of the lyrics used at the trial were handpicked from Williams’s discography, and highlighted specific references to gang life.¹² Such a selective choice of lyrics emphasizes the complexities of admitting artistic expression into evidence and raises ongoing questions about its role in criminal proceedings.

B. Evidentiary Standards Governing Song Lyric Admissibility

The admissibility of rap lyrics turns on the same evidentiary principles that govern all forms of expressive evidence. Courts must first determine whether the material is relevant to proving an element of the charged offense and then balance that relevance against the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or undue influence on the jury.¹³ This balancing test is most often conducted under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 which grants trial courts broad discretion to exclude evidence whose prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value.¹⁴ In the context of artistic works, courts have noted the possibility that jurors may interpret fictional or hyperbolic expression literally, which could lead to lyrics being viewed as statements of fact rather than as artistic expression. These considerations inform the judicial analysis in criminal cases involving the lyrics of rap songs.

C. Federal Courts

In United States v. Wilson, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ultimately applied the “Test for Relevant Evidence” under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 (“Rule 401”). Evidence is relevant under Rule 401 if both “(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.”¹⁵ This rule was applied in considering a motion to dismiss.¹⁶ The motion considered evidence which included rap lyrics found in Wilson’s possession upon his arrest, rap lyrics on an affiliate’s computer, and rap lyrics in another affiliate’s home.¹⁷ Wilson was ultimately convicted of racketeering and the capital murder of two police officers, using evidence based on these lyrics to assist in his prosecution.¹⁸ Wilson argued that the lyrics were irrelevant and unduly prejudicial and that the material on the computer and in the home constituted hearsay.¹⁹ The court ultimately permitted the use of the lyrics holding that the material was not unduly prejudicial, because the contents were no more inflammatory than the crimes alleged.²⁰ Furthermore, the lyrics were not determined to be hearsay because they were statements by a co-conspirator made during the course of, and in furtherance of a conspiracy involving Wilson.²¹ Under Rule 401, the lyrics were deemed relevant and particularly useful, because the government intended to introduce them in determining whether Wilson’s alleged “crew” existed and, if so, whether they engaged in racketeering activity.²²

The federal court’s reasoning in Wilson demonstrates a broad willingness to treat rap lyrics as relevant and admissible. In contrast, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in State v. Skinner, emphasized the unique prejudicial dangers posed by creative expression.²³ This analysis reflects one of the more notable state-level decisions to examine the admissibility of rap lyrics in court.

D. State Courts

In State v. Skinner, the defendant, Vonte Skinner, was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.²⁴ Skinner was an aspiring rapper and small-time drug dealer who was arrested for attempting to kill another drug dealer in New Jersey.²⁵ The majority ultimately held that introducing rap lyrics portraying violence, profanities, and disturbing material by the defendant was deemed to be unduly prejudicial to a jury.²⁶ Among the lyrics cited as evidence of criminal activity was Skinner’s lyric: “Own by guns, one night you break in, somebody home. And you take their money and kill by drive down the road and shout, and shouting.”²⁷ Ultimately, the lyrics were found to have little to no probative value in establishing motive or intent for the charges at issue.²⁸

The New Jersey Supreme Court was hesitant to make rap lyrics broadly admissible in criminal trials and applied the New Jersey Rule of Evidence 404(b), which requires a “direct connection” demonstrating clear proof of intent or motive for a specific crime.²⁹ Skinner held that using lyrics to establish character evidence of a defendant is impermissible when offered to prove conduct in conformity with that character.³⁰ The New Jersey Supreme Court noted in the case that rap lyrics in particular are part of a genre of music that society often finds distasteful, which could bias the jury against the defendant.³¹ The lyrics in Skinner were purely fictional, thus the lyrics had little probative value.³² As such, unless the writing created a strong nexus between artistic composition and the circumstances of the underlying offense, the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value of the lyrics.³³ And therefore, the lyrics should not be entered into evidence.³⁴ The majority provided guidance for future trial courts and emphasized the need to carefully ensure that irrelevant and inflammatory content is not unnecessarily presented to the jury.³⁵ The ruling reflects judicial caution in allowing creative expression to be used as evidence, particularly where there is no clear and direct connection to the alleged crime.

E. Legislative Reform

Many courts have split on whether to admit rap lyrics into criminal trials.³⁶ In 2022, however, the Restoring Artistic Protection Act (“RAP”) was introduced at the federal level. RAP intended to amend Article IV of the Federal Rules of Evidence to allow for greater leniency in creative expression.³⁷ The Act provides a framework where a court cannot use artistic expression as evidence against a defendant in a criminal case, except in particular instances.³⁸ These exceptions include situations where the government can prove by clear and convincing evidence that: (i) the defendant intended the expression literally; (ii) the expression directly refers to the facts of the alleged crime; (iii) the expression is relevant to a disputed factual issue; and (iv) the expression has probative value not available from other sources of admissible evidence.³⁹ Similar bills have been passed by various states, such as the Decriminalizing Artistic Expression Act in California.⁴⁰ However, RAP is the first federal legislation to be proposed.⁴¹ In bringing forth this bill, representatives recognized that while the First Amendment guarantees a freedom of expression, this freedom can be undermined when safeguards are not in place to ensure that an artist’s work is not wrongfully used as evidence against them.⁴² The bill represents a significant step forward in the ongoing effort to address biases against rap music in the judicial system.⁴³

III. Discussion

A. Racial and Cultural Implications

While RAP seeks to reform evidentiary rules, a deeper issue lies in how the use of rap lyrics as evidence perpetuates racial stereotypes and systemic bias. Rap music has historically addressed the socio-economic, political, and cultural inequalities faced by Black Americans in our society.⁴⁴ Rap music and race are inextricably linked, because the genre was created by Black artists who have used music as an outlet to tell their stories.⁴⁵ Courts are currently ill-equipped to account for implicit racial bias when allowing rap lyrics as admissible evidence to convict a criminal defendant.⁴⁶ Discrimination has long been pervasive in the criminal justice system; historically, Black individuals have faced higher levels of police violence, higher bail amounts, and longer sentences than White defendants.⁴⁷ Using rap lyrics—a genre often depicting Black American’s experiences and using lyrics not often intended to be interpreted literally—to prove criminal intent allows for stereotypes to influence jurors, who may therefore interpret the lyrics without regard for their artistic or poetic expression.⁴⁸ Beyond the legal rules governing evidentiary admissibility, the use of rap lyrics as evidence raises critical questions about how jurors perceive artistic expression. Social science research indicates that jurors may sometimes interpret rap lyrics literally—particularly when they are unfamiliar with the cultural and stylistic conventions of the genre—which can influence perceptions and evaluations of intent.⁴⁹

In a study conducted by Charis Kubrin and Erik Nielson, professors of the Criminology, Law and Society College at the University of California, Irvine, participants were presented with the same set of violent lyrics, but the genre was varied for each sample.⁵⁰ Some were told the lyrics were from rap music, and others were told they were from a country song.⁵¹ The results indicated that when participants believed the lyrics were from rap music, they viewed them as more dangerous, offensive, threatening, and literal compared to when they believed the lyrics were from a country song.⁵² This data suggests that jurors may interpret rap lyrics more negatively due to stereotypes that are associated with the genre.⁵³ Additionally, Kubrin and Nielson’s research shows that jurors often interpret rap lyrics literally, overlooking the genre’s use of stylistic language tactics such as hyperboles, fictional personas, and metaphors.⁵⁴ These stylistic conventions are common in rap music but frequently become misunderstood, leading to the mistaken belief that lyrics reflect real-life intent rather than artistic expression.⁵⁵ This lack of understanding can lead to misinterpretations and potential biases creating prejudice in legal proceedings.⁵⁶ These findings underscore the importance of considering the cultural context of rap music when evaluating its admissibility as evidence in criminal trials.

B. First Amendment Considerations

The Supreme Court has also taken a stance on this issue. The Court recognized that music, as a form of speech and expression, is generally protected under the First Amendment.⁵⁷ However, not all speech is protected. Unprotected speech includes true threats—a statement in which a speaker makes to communicate a serious expression of intent to commit an unlawful act of violence regardless of whether they have the ability to carry it out.⁵⁸ The Court later addressed this in Elonis v. United States, a criminal case involving rap music with violent content in the lyrics.⁵⁹ Justice Thomas dissented arguing that a true threat must communicate a “serious expression of intent to commit unlawful physical violence and not merely a political hyperbole.”⁶⁰ The majority, however, was hesitant to treat such threats as hidden messages in the form of rap lyrics, because to do so could “open the floodgates” to criticizing similar statements like those posted on social media, which enjoy less protection than artistic expression.⁶¹

Building on the Court’s recognition of music as protected expression, it is important to consider the broader values underlying the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. First Amendment freedom of speech can be used as a tool of self-fulfillment in an effort for oneself to bond man’s capacity to think, imagine, and create.⁶² However, placing this unduly burden onto musical artists could limit what is being expressed and it is thought that people cannot realize their full potential as human beings unless they are free to truly express themselves without restraint.⁶³ Lyrics, which normally serve as a form of art and free speech, can pose serious implications when they are reframed as factual confessions admissible as evidence in a trial.⁶⁴

The use of song lyrics as permissible evidence in criminal trials, such as Young Thug’s case, raises significant concerns about the erosion of First Amendment protections when courts allow for creative expression to substitute direct evidence demonstrating criminal intent. Like in Elonis, courts should be wary of treating rap lyrics—often fictional, exaggerated, and culturally stylized to the genre—as probative of a defendant’s state of mind or inclination for violence. Doing so not only risks prejudicing the juries, particularly along racial lines of the rap genre, but also sets a dangerous precedent that could minimize artistic speech and expression that has historically been protected under the First Amendment.

IV. Conclusion

The Young Thug and YSL prosecutions underscore how rap lyrics can be weaponized to construct criminal liability, raising profound First Amendment and racial justice concerns. Courts have struggled to balance the probative value of artistic expression against the risk of unfair prejudice, as seen in United States v. Wilson, where rap lyrics were admitted to prove conspiracy, and State v. Skinner, where the New Jersey Supreme Court emphasized the heightened potential for misinterpretation. Federal evidentiary rules provide a framework for evaluating relevance, prejudice, and permissible uses of prior acts, yet their application often fails to account for the cultural and racial context of hip-hop. Proposed reforms, such as RAP, have sought to codify protections for creative expression by limiting admissibility and requiring clear procedural safeguards, including heightened standards of proof and jury instructions.⁶⁵ Elonis v. United States and Virginia v. Black further illustrate the challenge courts face in distinguishing between protected speech, artistic hyperboles, and true threats, underscoring the importance of intent and audience perception.⁶⁶

Taken together, the law remains in tension: rap lyrics are a form of creative expression that can illuminate character or intent, yet their admission risks reinforcing racial stereotypes and criminalizing cultural expression. As courts and legislatures continue to grapple with this issue, the challenge will be how to safeguard artistic freedom while ensuring fairness in criminal proceedings and addressing the systemic racial implications that have long plagued the use of hip-hop lyrics in the courtroom.

Cover Photo by Adi Goldstein on Unsplash

Joshua Smith

References

1
Jesse McKinley & Jonah E. Bromwich, Young Thug Arrested on Gang Charges in Atlanta, N.Y. Times (May 9, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/09/us/young-thug-arrested-gang.html[https://perma.cc/HTE7-YAVT].
2
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–68.
3
Indictment, State v. Adams, No. 22SC182273 (Fulton Cnty. Super. Ct. May 9, 2022).
4
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
5
Adv. Optics Elecs., Inc. v. Robins, 633 F. Supp. 2d 1237, 1253 (D.N.M. 2008).
6
Deena Zaru, Young Thug Faces Trial in RICO Case With Rap Lyrics as Part of Evidence: What You Need to Know, ABC News (Jan. 9, 2023), https://abcnews.go.com/US/young-thug-faces-trial-rico-case-rap-lyrics/story?id=96131812[https://perma.cc/938M-BFPN].
7
Safia Samee Ali, Black Rappers Call Out Double Standard of Using Hip-Hop Lyrics as Evidence in Rapper Young Thug’s Criminal Trial, NBC News (Jan. 13, 2023), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/black-rappers-call-double-standard-using-hip-hop-lyrics-evidence-rappe-rcna65529[https://perma.cc/D6D4-W9HW].
8
Zaru, Deena, Young Thug Faces Trial in RICO Case With Rap Lyrics as Part of Evidence: What You Need to Know, ABCNews (Jan. 9, 2023), https://abcnews.go.com/US/young-thug-faces-trial-rico-case-rap-lyrics/story?id=96131812 [https://perma.cc/938M-BFPN].
9
Kate Brumback, Lyrics Can Be Uused as Evidence During Rapper Young Thug’s Trial, Court TV (Nov. 9, 2023), https://www.courttv.com/news/lyrics-can-be-used-as-evidence-during-rapper-young-thugs-trial/ [https://perma.cc/3XS4-EG97].
10
Maxime Tamsett & Nick Valencia, YSL Gang Trial: Lyrics Evidence, CNN (Nov. 10, 2023), https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/10/us/ysl-gang-trial-lyrics-evidence [https://perma.cc/77RF-Y54S].
11
Indictment, State v. Adams, No. 22SC182273 (Fulton Cnty. Super. Ct. May 9, 2022).
12
Id.
13
Fed. R. Evid. 403
14
Id.
15
Fed. R. Evid. 401.
16
U.S. v. Wilson, 493 F. Supp. 2d 460, 462 (E.D.N.Y. 2006).
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
Id. at 463.
21
Id.
22
Id.
23
State v. Skinner, 218 N.J. 496, 503 (N.J. 2014).
24
Id.
25
Sakia De Melker, New Jersey Court Strikes Down Murder Conviction Based on Violent Rap Lyrics, PBS NewsHour (Aug. 9, 2014), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/nj-supreme-court-strikes-conviction-based-rap-lyrics[https://perma.cc/3PU4-8UE5].
26
Skinner, 218 N.J. at 525.
27
Id. at 513.
28
Id. at 500.
29
N.J. R. Evid. 404(b)(1).
30
N.J. R. Evid. 404(b)(2).
31
Skinner, 218 N.J. at 500.
32
Id. at 501.
33
Id.
34
Id. at 502.
35
Id.
36
Jason Binimow, Admissibility of Rap Lyrics or Videos in Criminal Prosecutions, 43 A.L.R.. 7th Art. 1 (2019).
37
H.R. 8531, 117th Cong. (2022).
38
Id.
39
Id.
40
Id.
41
Montana Miller, The RAP (Restoring Artistic Protection) Act Has Been Introduced in the House: Here’s What It Means for Artists’ First Amendment Rights, Recording Academy (July 29, 2022), https://www.recordingacademy.com/advocacy/news/rap-act-restoring-artistic-protection-house-of-representatives-what-to-know[https://perma.cc/5XW8-E72F].
42
Id.
43
Id.
44
Sarah Becker & Castel Sweet, The Sociological Study of Hip Hop Culture and the Criminal Justice System, Am. Sociological Ass’n (2018), https://www.asanet.org/wp-content/uploads/attach/journals/jan20srefeature.pdf. [https://perma.cc/G4FH-Q9GM].
45
Reyna Araibi, Note, Every Rhyme I Write: Rap Music as Evidence in Criminal Trials, 62 Ariz. L. Rev. 805, 811 (2020).
46
Id.
47
Criminal Justice Fact Sheet, NAACP, https://www.naacp.org/resources/criminal-justice-fact-sheet [https://perma.cc/28MX-TUCY] (last visited Sept. 19, 2025).
48
Ryan J. Bennett, Note, Rappers’ Rhymes Are Not Admissions to Crimes: Eliminating the Unlawful Use of Rap Lyrics Against Rappers in Criminal Proceedings, 48 Ohio N. U. L. Rev. 1 (2021).
49
Id.
50
Charis E. Kubrin & Erik Nielson, Negative Perceptions of Rap Threaten to Bias Jurors in Criminal Trials Involving Rappers, U.C. Irvine News (June 13, 2017), https://cls.soceco.uci.edu/news/negative-perceptions-rap-threaten-bias-jurors-criminal-trials-involving-rappers/ [https://perma.cc/GV55-4HEG].
51
Id.
52
Id.
53
Id.
54
Jack Lerner & Charis E. Kubrin, UCI Experts Produce Guide for Defense Attorneys Fighting Use of Rap Lyrics in Trials, U.C. Irvine News (June 9, 2021), https://news.uci.edu/2021/06/09/uci-experts-produce-guide-for-defense-attorneys-fighting-use-of-rap-lyrics-in-trials/[https://perma.cc/LVG6-KQF3].
55
Id.
56
Id.
57
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 790 (1989).
58
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 344 (2003).
59
Id.
60
Elonis v. U.S., 575 U.S. 723, 751 (2015).
61
Id. at 747.
62
Rodney A. Smolla, Smolla & Nimmer on Freedom of Speech § 2:25 (2023).
63
Id.
64
Chessie Thacher, Prosecutors Used Rap Lyrics as Evidence in a Murder Trial; that’s Racial Bias, ACLU of N. Cal.: Blog (Sept. 28, 2021), https://www.aclunc.org/blog/prosecutors-used-rap-lyrics-evidence-murder-trial-s-racial-bias[https://perma.cc/HH6B-KBJR].
65
Montana Miller, The RAP (Restoring Artistic Protection) Act Has Been Introduced in the House: Here’s What It Means for Artists’ First Amendment Rights, Recording Academy (July 29, 2022), https://www.recordingacademy.com/advocacy/news/rap-act-restoring-artistic-protection-house-of-representatives-what-to-know[https://perma.cc/5XW8-E72F].
66
Elonis v. U.S., 575 U.S. 723, 751 (2015).