In Atlanta, a lengthy and controversial criminal trial is slowly – sometimes glacially – making its way through the justice system.
On trial is Jeffrey Williams, a rapper and entertainer better known as Young Thug. He was indicted in May 2022 on charges that he was the kingpin of a criminal street gang – Young Slime Life. Williams and his attorneys contend that Young Slime Life is nothing more than the name of his record label.
One thing that makes this case distinctive – aside from how long it’s been moving through the system – is the evidence. Fulton County prosecutors want to use Young Thug’s lyrics as evidence that he committed crimes.
The trial, and the lyrical evidence being introduced by prosecutors, has sparked a discussion about racial double standards and free speech rights. And, it’s not the first time that prosecutors have sought to use lyrics as evidence, primarily against Black artists.
Andrea Dennis is the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and the John Byrd Martin Chair of Law at the University of Georgia School of Law. She is also the co-author of the 2019 book Rap on Trial: Race, Lyrics, and Guilt in America.
She spoke to WUGA's Martin Matheny about the case and her research.
Transcript:
Martin Matheny: So to start off, your book was written in 2019, which was before the controversy around the Young Thug. Talk to me a little bit about the genesis of the book and and what inspired you to to work on it.
Andrea Dennis: So the book actually has its origins in 2006 to 2007. Even when I published my first article regarding rap music evidence, and at the time I was a new faculty member at the University of Kentucky College of Law, and in that article, I was just beginning to explore this concept, this practice, this issue.
I had heard about it a few years earlier when I was a federal criminal defense attorney. There was a case that came into the office and it raised this particular issue, but that resolved itself and we didn't have to think about litigating the issue. Fast forward a few years later, I was then an assistant professor and a new colleague had mentioned that in the local courthouse in Lexington, KY, there was a case being tried in which the accused had been charged with homicide and the prosecutor was seeking to use lyrics that he had written in the case.
And so at that point I began to think there are more than one of those cases that I had previously encountered. I was a bit shocked and so I started the research at that time, and so that ultimately led to the article that I published called Poetic Injustice.
And there were a number of topics that I had sort of carved off at the time that couldn't be addressed just by this academic article, which had its own constraints. I wrote the article, published it, but a few years later my co-author on the book reached out to me, and so fast forward to probably 2016, we began to work on the book and the book would then ten years later be able to explore more cases because we encountered so many more cases since I had first started researching.
And some of those concerns that I had initially carved out were fresh, in particular, social media surveillance, the use of experts, the First Amendment implications. And so it was the right time to begin thinking about drafting the book, a longer version of that article that I wrote.
Martin Matheny: You mentioned the First Amendment and I wanted to ask you to kind of expand a little bit on what the First Amendment implications of this are.
Andrea Dennis: So when we first mentioned the issue to lots of people or when people come across the the topic they say well, the First Amendment clearly must prevent this from happening and the First Amendment jurisprudence or doctrine or law is quite convoluted and to use a legal term, messy, and it does not protect as much as people might think.
The First Amendment jurisprudence or doctrine or law is quite convoluted, and to use a legal term, messy.
And so in this particular context, right, the First Amendment does protect art.
It does protect musical creations, but there are a number of carveouts.
For example, the First Amendment protects the government or the state from prohibiting certain forms of artistic expression outright. It prohibits penalizing individuals just for the mere creation or expression. But the distinction that is made - and it's to some people, a very fine one, but for lawyers and judges, lawmakers, it has significance - is that using the artistic expression, the musical expression as evidence, even by the government, does not prevent individuals from creating the art.
It does not punish them for creating the art. What's happening is that the individuals are being charged and accused of crimes, and this is just simply evidence that might be related to the crime. So the individual is not being punished for creating the music, they're being punished, potentially, for some act that they've done.
So that's the the very sort of bright line reason that, in many instances, the First Amendment does not protect.
Martin Matheny: Are you concerned that the more cases like this arise, the more it will have a a chilling effect on artistic expression, especially in rap and hip hop?
Andrea Dennis: Yes. And so this is one of the the arguments that we have tried to advance, which is that, understanding the current state of First Amendment doctrine, one reasoned approach is what has been put forth.
We actually see concrete instances in which artists are aware of the possible implications of their lyrics.
But we actually think because the First Amendment is also mindful of the possibility of chilling or preventing or discouraging free speech, including artistic expression, then that should be of concern here. And we actually see concrete instances in which artists are aware of the possible implications of their lyrics, whether or not they have engaged in any criminal activity and are crafting their art, or constructing their personas, or engaging in artistic expression.
In light of this potential penalty and as well, even though the First Amendment as doctrine, as it currently stands, doesn't, that is not a foregone conclusion. That is not actually the way the doctrine has to be.
Martin Matheny: You mentioned personas and I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about that and its role in in rap music.
Andrea Dennis: Much like other forms of artistic expression, much like other performative arts, individuals are taking on in some instances, taking on and adopting characters either within the particular lyrics or as an overall persona that they are using within their art form, right?
Maybe he's a little bit dated. I don't know. It depends what generation you ask. Right? Eminem. To many people, they can immediately understand this concept of a persona with Eminem, right? He has his Eminem persona. Slim shady, right? He presents one way through his lyrics, but he might present a very different way in real life, right? He has created a character that is accessible to many listeners, that many people identify with for a variety of reasons.
And there are plenty of other artists who do this well, and even amateur and aspiring artists do this, and so the adoption of personas is embedded in the artistic practice.
Again, I'm not suggesting that every artist does this, but the adoption of alter egos and personas that may not have any relation to the individual's life is not absolutely out of the question.
Martin Matheny: Have there been successful cases where somebody was found guilty based in part on their lyrics?
Andrea Dennis: Oh my gosh, yes. So when I first wrote that article back in 2006, I could only find, I would say dozens, and that was based on the ability at the time to conduct research.
We were again in the sort of early stages of a very robust Internet. You couldn't find lots of archived or documented instances online. We had commercial databases for legal research. But those were also of limited ability.
We have found at least, certainly more than 500 -bordering on somewhere between 500 and 1,000 [cases] - and to some people, that might just be a small number, but what we believe is that that's merely the tip of the iceberg.
And so, I found I was able to identify, I would say dozens of cases. The earliest case we had identified was from 1991. Since then, we have identified a case as early as 1989. It would not be surprising to me if we found cases much earlier.
Fast forward to today and we have found at least, certainly more than 500 -bordering on somewhere between 500 and 1,000 - and to some people, that might just be a small number, but what we believe is that that's merely the tip of the iceberg. Those are just the cases we are able to identify, either through Google searches or people reaching out to us and letting us know that they've had a case or through searching commercial databases, judicial databases. We expect that there are thousands, at least. But we can't actually give you a pinpoint accurate number.
Martin Matheny: And these are cases where there were convictions.
Andrea Dennis: Convictions, yes. And, so what is interesting about your question is these are cases in which there are convictions and we've expanded now to cases in which the lyrics are used to investigate, to actually charge, so maybe to file an indictment, and cases that might be used in supervision violations. So if an individual is on parole or probation, there is the possibility that these lyrics can be used to violate them.
And so, when I first started, I was looking for instances in which the lyrics were used in trials, because that was an identifiable set of cases that we could potentially find.
Since then we've expanded and so now, yes, I would say if we're going to include all of those other instances - using investigation used in obtaining an indictment, used in probation and parole and other supervision violations, the number then explodes. Because these are not adjudicated through a criminal trial process, they were used for other purposes within the criminal legal process.
Martin Matheny: Finally, as I was working on on putting this piece together with our producer, I had this one line from a song running through my head the whole time, and you've probably heard this before by Johnny Cash, "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die."
As far as I know, Johnny Cash was never investigated or charged with any unsolved murders in Reno, NV.
Is there a double standard here? Is there a racial double standard?
Andrea Dennis: Yes, it seems quite apparent to us. You know, when I initially began the research, I withheld judgment.
It is quite clear that there is a racial aspect to this.
Fast forward, 15 almost 20 years later, and that is quite apparent. And when I say withheld judgment, I think to me there was certainly evidence, right? But because of the small subset of cases, I didn't want to be definitive about it.
I think almost 20 years later and, that concern has abated, and it is quite clear that there is a racial aspect to this.
Whether you think it's chicken-egg , we can have conversations about, but that is clearly the case, right? And so, you know, for many people, Johnny Cash becomes a common, relatable example.
No one has ever demonstrated to me that he was investigated for criminal activity relating to a homicide in Reno or just generally. What we see happening now is that some statements attract the eyes in the interest of law enforcement, and that leads to the investigation of individuals for potential crimes, not just the crime that was allegedly stated, but other criminal activities.
Martin Matheny: Professor Andrea Dennis, thanks so much for your time.
