When Lyrics Become Evidence: Rap Music, Criminal Trials, and the PACE Act

Demi Lavapies | May 7, 2026

Controversial in criminal trials is the introduction of rap lyrics as evidence; prosecutors argue that the words artists write and perform can serve as confessions, as clear indicators of intent.

In a recent Supreme Court case, People v. Reaves, from last June, the lower court admitted evidence from a pretrial recorded telephone call of the defendant’s rap song, provided that the People presented someone knowledgeable in slang to decipher the lyrics (People v. Reaves, 2025). The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division held that the defendant was deprived of fair trial because the expert was really unqualified in deciphering the language used in the lyrics, and further, that the lyrics were ambiguous.

At the center of this debate is Maryland’s recently passed Protecting Artists’ Creative Expression (PACE) Act, a piece of legislation designed to limit how creative works can be used in court. The bill responds to a pattern in which prosecutors have cited lyrics as literal accounts of criminal activity, even when those lyrics are fictional, exaggerated, or rooted in long-standing storytelling traditions within hip-hop. Supporters of the PACE Act argue that without clear guardrails, the justice system risks misinterpreting art and, in doing so, undermining both free expression and fair trials. California and Louisiana are two states which have adopted similar acts to the PACE Act already.

Several high-profile cases have demonstrated how rap lyrics can be presented to juries as incriminating evidence, often stripped of their artistic context. In these instances, metaphors, personas, and narrative devices are treated as autobiographical statements. Critics argue that this approach reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the genre. Like novels or films, rap music will blend reality with fiction, and represents creative expression. Treating lyrics as literal truth ignores that complexity.

The concern becomes even more pressing when viewed through the lens of race. Opponents of using rap lyrics as evidence point out that this practice disproportionately affects Black artists. Other musical genres rarely face the same level of scrutiny, even when their lyrics depict violence or illegal behavior. This disparity raises uncomfortable questions about bias within the legal system. Are rap lyrics being singled out because of their content, or because of the cultural identity of the artists who create them?

The PACE Act attempts to address these concerns by establishing stricter standards for admissibility. Under the proposed framework, prosecutors would need to demonstrate a clear and direct connection between the creative work and the alleged crime. It would no longer be sufficient to point to a lyric and suggest it sounds incriminating. This act includes a four-pronged test to determine the relevance and relation of the song lyric to the case. This shift aims to preserve the integrity of artistic expression while still allowing relevant evidence to be considered when found appropriate.

Beyond Maryland, the debate reflects broader national conversations about free speech and the role of art in society. The First Amendment protects creative expression, but those protections are not absolute. Courts have long grappled with the boundaries between speech and action, particularly when language appears to reference violence or illegal conduct. The question raised by rap lyrics is whether artistic expression should be treated differently from other forms of speech—and if so, how.

Hip-hop has historically served as a platform for marginalized voices, and those in favor of the Maryland PACE Act have commented on the possible prejudice inherent in using irrelevant lyrics as evidence against defendants. Lyrics can, in certain cases, provide valuable insight into a defendant’s mindset or intentions. The challenge lies in distinguishing whether art reflects reality, or if it is simply creative expression. Hopefully, with the implementation of standards such as Maryland’s new four-pronged test, the risk of misinterpretation will be reduced.