Credit: Miguel Martinez/The Atlanta Journal-Constitution/ZUMA
Are rap lyrics confessions, or are they a means to express an artistic message? RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) was originally passed in 1970 to target organized crime. Recently, RICO has been intertwined with the music industry revolving around Young Stoner Life (YSL) Records, founded by the celebrated Atlantan artist Young Thug (Jeffery Williams). Prosecutors in this case alleged that YSL was not merely a record label but is a front for a gang deeply involved in violent crimes. The literal interpretation of rap lyrics has played a significant role in the YSL case, as well as in other criminal cases. Whether such use is proper and just, however, is hotly contested.
The charges brought against Williams and his associates included conspiracy, gang activity, possession of drugs and illegal firearms, armed robbery, assault, and attempted murder. The complex case has unfolded to become the longest criminal trial in Georgia history. In Judge Paige Reese Whitaker’s sentencing, Williams was permitted to return to the Atlanta area for weddings, funerals, and graduations but must leave within forty-eight hours of each event’s conclusion. Williams was also required to return four times a year to host anti-gang and anti-gun presentations and must complete 100 hours of community service each year of his probation, with no contact allowed with known gang members or associates. If Williams was convicted on all charges, he would have faced up to 120 years in prison.
Brian Steel, William’s attorney, undertook a unique defense strategy by not only disputing the criminal allegations but also challenging the ethical conduct of the prosecution. Steel accused Judge Ural Glanville and Fulton County District Attorney prosecutors in a 200-page motion highlighting alleged misconduct, going as far as declaring the trial as a “farce.” After Steel accused Judge Glanville of holding a private meeting with Kenneth Copeland, an alleged associate of Young Thug and star witness in the gang conspiracy case, Steel was escorted out of the courtroom by Sherrifs’ deputies. Moreover, ethical concerns surrounding District Attorney Fani Willis—including allegations of a relationship with Nathan Wade, the lead prosecutor in Donald Trump’s Georgia election interference case—began to spill over into the YSL RICO case. These controversies drew significant public interest and concerns about potential prosecutorial overreach and judicial bias in high-stakes criminal trials.
Meanwhile, the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) require admissible evidence to be relevant. FRE 403 allows a court to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value (its ability to prove something important to the case) is substantially outweighed by certain negative factors. These factors include the risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, causing undue delay, wasting time, or presenting cumulative redundant evidence. Essentially, FRE 403 gives judges discretion to keep the trial fair and efficient by excluding evidence that, while relevant, may be overly harmful or distracting. In this case, Georgia Code 24-4-403 mirrors the federal statute. Therefore, courts face the predicament of delimiting artistic expression with respect to the relevance of a lyric.
One of the most contentious elements of the YSL case was the prosecution’s reliance on William’s lyrics, social media posts, and brand imagery in supporting the gang-related allegations. The indictment cited his lyrics, including phrases like “I’m prepared to take them down” and references to supposed gang culture through words like “slatt” and “slime.” The prosecution argued that the lyrics were “highly pertinent” to the defendants’ state of mind and intent. Judge Granville conditionally permitted the use of these lyrics in evidence but stressed that the state had to establish a foundation connecting the lyrics and the criminal activity. Steel opposed the use of lyrics as evidence, contending that their use would be racially discriminatory and would unduly influence the jury by implying guilt based on artistic expression. Doug Weinstein, attorney for YSL rapper Deamonte Kendrick, argued that “[t]here is art here, and the art has…to be separated from real life.
The use of rap lyrics in court reveals the need for clearer guidelines on the admissibility of creative works. The fundamental freedom of free speech contained in the First Amendment ought to protect artistic freedom within the context of evidentiary standards for criminal trials. The RAP Act, California Evidence Code Section 352.2, and a variety of other legislation have attempted to clarify these guidelines. However, courts, lawmakers, and artists need to continue to standardize this intersection of law and art.
*The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of Santa Clara University.
Comments