Abstract

Excerpted From: Alexa Perez, A Critical Analysis of Rap Shield Laws, 110 Cornell Law Review 1427 (February, 2026) (371 Footnotes) (Full Document)

In May 2022, Grammy Award-winning rapper Jeffery Lamar Williams II, known professionally as Young Thug, made headlines when his rap lyrics were prominently featured in a fifty-six-count indictment charging him and twenty-seven others with conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), among other offenses. The indictment alleged that Young Thug’s rap lyrics helped YSL, an alleged criminal street gang, preserve, protect, and enhance its reputation, power, and territory by “ demonstrating allegiance to the enterprise and a willingness to engage in violence on its behalf.” Lyrics featured throughout the indictment included, “ I done for the crew, I done did the robbin, I done did the jackin, now I’m full rappin” ; 3 “ gave the lawyer close to two mil, he handles all the killings” ; 4 and “ for slimes you know I kill, trial, I done beat it twice, state, I’m undefeated ....” During Young Thug’s bond hearing in June 2022, the prosecution again relied on his rap lyrics, reading the following lyrics to persuade the judge that Young Thug was a threat to the public: “ Fuck the police. Fuck the judge. Mob life.” Then again, starting in November 2023, during what is now the longest criminal trial in Georgia’s history, the prosecution introduced several of Young Thug’s lyrics to prove the charged offenses.

Young Thug is not alone--several other famous rappers have recently had their lyrics used as evidence against them in criminal proceedings. In 2019, after being indicted on charges related to racketeering, weapon possession, and conspiracy to commit murder, Daniel Hernandez, known professionally as Tekashi69 or 6ix9ine, pled guilty and agreed to testify against his codefendants as a government witness. During his testimony, prosecutors played excerpts of Tekashi69’s music videos and provided jurors with transcripts of the lyrics of his songs. In 2022, twenty individuals, many of whom are part of the Bronx drill 10 music scene, were indicted on charges involving shootings and stabbings as part of what law enforcement called “ Operation Drilly,” an investigation that relied, in part, on the monitoring and review of rap music videos. In 2023, Michael Williams, known professionally as Sheff G, was among thirty-two defendants charged in a one-hundred-and-forty-count indictment that featured lyrics from his rap songs. And the list goes on.

But these are just a handful of examples against rappers with notoriety. Rap lyrics have also been used against amateur and novice rappers, or simply those who express themselves through rap. Since at least the early 1990s, rap lyrics have been introduced in several hundred federal and state criminal proceedings against both high-profile and amateur rappers. In recent years, the practice of relying on rap lyrics as evidence in criminal proceedings has become much more commonplace. Of the hundreds of criminal cases in which rap lyrics were admitted as evidence, more than seventy percent occurred in the last ten years. The use of online downloading or streaming platforms such as YouTube, Spotify, Snapchat, and Soundcloud, has expanded artists’ (including the famous, the amateur, and the experimentalist) abilities to record and disseminate music, making rap music more widely available to not only fans but also law enforcement and prosecutors. Indeed, state and federal law enforcement agencies have organized “ Hip-Hop Task Forces” to conduct surveillance on individuals “ in and around the hiphop music scene.”

For years, scholars have been sounding the alarm on the use of rap as evidence and coined the term “ rap on trial” to describe the practice. As scholars point out, determining the admissibility of rap as evidence requires unique considerations. In particular, rap music, as a form of artistic expression often replete with figurative language and braggadocio, makes determining its probative value challenging. The introduction of rap music as evidence also has the potential to be highly prejudicial to defendants, given common references to violence, drugs, and guns. Additionally, despite its mainstream popularity, several studies have shown that individuals hold negative views toward rap music and those who create it, which also increases the risk of prejudice in criminal proceedings. Aside from these evidentiary concerns, admitting rap lyrics as evidence has the potential to chill artists’ creative expression.

While scholars have been critical of rap on trial for some time now, the recent use of rap lyrics in criminal proceedings against high-profile artists, like Young Thug, has brought national attention and widespread criticism to the practice. Since 2019, a book has been written,  podcasts have been produced,  documentaries have been filmed,  and a substantial body of legal scholarship has been published 29 criticizing the use of rap as evidence. And just after Young Thug’s indictment, industry leaders, legal experts, and over 100 artists (including, just to name a few, Alicia Keys, Camila Cabello, Coldplay, Drake, Future, J. Cole, Jack Harlow, John Legend, Lil Baby, Mary J. Blige, Meek Mill, Megan Thee Stallion, Post Malone, and Travis Scott) signed an open letter criticizing the evidentiary use of rap music.

In response to this growing concern and a perceived gap in evidence law, several state and federal legislators have proposed amending the rules of evidence (and, in some cases, the rules of criminal procedure) to create a special relevancy rule that limits the use of rap lyrics in criminal proceedings, 31 what this Article refers to as “ rap shields.” State legislators in California, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, and New York have proposed such rap shields, and a similar rule has been proposed in Congress to amend the Federal Rules of Evidence. So far, two states, California and Louisiana, have enacted rap shield laws, with California being the first to do so. Many of the rap shield laws being urged demonstrate the temptation to adopt “ quick-fix” solutions to high-profile issues. Despite the laudable goals of these reforms, those temptations should be resisted.

This Article provides the first critical analysis of recent rap shield legislation. In particular, this Article argues that, as currently drafted, rap shields are duplicative and, therefore, unnecessary from both an evidentiary and constitutional standpoint. As demonstrated by recent court decisions, in practice these legislative efforts do little more than duplicate existing precedents under the current evidentiary framework. While rap shield statutes may be duplicative from an evidentiary and constitutional standpoint, they nevertheless serve important social justice functions, including limiting judicial discretion by providing judges with specific guidance on when to properly admit and exclude rap music as evidence. Those important functions, however, come with unintended costs--costs that may outweigh the benefits the rap shields are intended to serve--including impeding on defendants’ rights to present a defense, encouraging the use of problematic gang expert testimony, and limiting the use of highly probative evidence far beyond merely rap music, like sex dolls and gang tattoos.

This Article examines these ideas in six Parts. Part I provides a brief overview of the rules of evidence most applicable to determining the admissibility of rap. Part II discusses the concerns with relying on rap lyrics as evidence: (A) the difficulties with determining the probative value of rap lyrics by virtue of rap music’s artistic conventions; (B) the risk of introducing unfair prejudice into criminal proceedings; and (C) the potential chilling effects of the practice. Part III provides an overview of the different approaches legislators are taking to address these concerns through rap shield legislation. Part IV examines the admissibility of rap lyrics as evidence under the current evidentiary framework (and without the benefit of rap shields). Part V argues that rap shield laws are duplicative and, therefore, largely unnecessary from an evidentiary and constitutional standpoint. Part V further argues that rap shields nevertheless may serve important functions from a social justice standpoint by limiting judges’ otherwise broad discretion to admit evidence and increasing judicial scrutiny through modified admissibility standards and procedural requirements. Part VI argues that the benefit of that guidance, however, may not outweigh unintended consequences. This Article concludes that the administration of justice may be better served and the concerns with rap on trial better addressed when the current evidentiary framework is stringently applied rather than amended.

[ . . . ]

Rap shield laws enjoy broad support for a host of well-intentioned and thoroughly examined reasons. Undoubtedly, rap music, by nature of the artistic conventions of the genre, often conveys a less-than-truthful account of the violent or criminal character of the artist. The themes of violence, drugs, guns, and other criminal behavior, often present in rap music, can also make its introduction into evidence potentially highly prejudicial. And artists should be free to create without fear that their lyrics could be unfairly used against them at a trial. But as other evidentiary reforms have shown us, even when passed in good faith, the law of unintended consequences can sometimes lead to perverse results that are counterproductive to the goals they were intended to serve.

However well-intentioned rap shield legislative efforts may be, on balance the system may suffer. In their quest to find lasting solutions to combat the concerns with rap on trial, legislators should be mindful of unintended consequences. Although it is often said that as California goes, so goes the nation, this time other states should think twice before following California’s lead. Ultimately, the administration of justice may be better served and the social justice concerns with rap on trial better addressed by a robust application of the current rules of evidence rather than amendments to those rules

Alexa Perez is an Assistant Professor of Law at Drake University Law School.