Lil Durk Fights Use of His Lyrics as Evidence Ahead of April Trial

When a rap song leaves the studio and enters a courtroom, the rules change fast. With Lil Durk’s federal murder-for-hire trial set for April, the Chicago rapper is challenging prosecutors who want to use his own music against him, arguing that lyrics meant for art and storytelling should not be treated like real-life confessions.

In a brief filed in federal court on Friday, January 23, Durk’s legal team asked the judge to exclude a dozen songs, music videos, and lyric excerpts the government plans to introduce at trial. According to the filing, as reported bby Complex, that material “carries an extraordinary risk of unfair prejudice.”

Prosecutors have argued that the songs and visuals they want to use are “direct evidence” and “inextricably intertwined” with the charges. Durk’s attorneys say that claim does not hold up, especially since there is no clear proof connecting the lyrics to the alleged crime.

They point out that the government has not shown when the songs were written or even who wrote the specific lines being highlighted. As the brief states, “The notices [of which musical evidence is being used] do not identify who authored the lyrics, when they were created, whether the defendants adopted them, or how the government connects each specific excerpt to any particular fact in dispute.”

Without that information, the defense argues, the court cannot fairly judge whether the lyrics are actually relevant. “Without this basic information, the Court cannot determine whether the music evidence is temporally connected to the charged conspiracy or ‘too temporally distant’ to qualify as part of the same transaction,” the brief reads.

Durk’s team also says the lyrics themselves are vague and generic, touching on themes that appear throughout hip-hop. They describe the material as “irrelevant” and “misleading,” arguing it reflects common genre storytelling rather than specific criminal acts.

To support their argument, Durk’s lawyers enlisted Erik Nielson, a professor and co-author of the 2019 book Rap on Trial: Race, Lyrics, and Guilt in America. In a declaration attached to the brief, Nielson wrote that “the proposed evidence is of similar type, content, and substance as a large percentage of music produced by other artists in the same genre as the defendants.”

Nielson also addressed language prosecutors claim is meaningful, including references to “opps,” beefs, firearms, and violence. He described that wording as “common, commercial and widespread” in rap music, rather than proof of real-world actions.

Another concern raised by the defense is that prosecutors have repeatedly changed which songs they want to use. “If the song was so important, they wouldn’t abandon it and replace another at each opportunity,” the brief reads. “It is as if the government sifted through the hundreds of songs of the defendants and just said, ‘we can make this one fit our narrative, let’s use it.’”

Durk’s attorneys also argue that the lyrics are “objectively offensive in almost every way” and could unfairly bias jurors, something they believe the government is relying on.

Lil Durk is accused of ordering a hit on rap rival Quando Rondo following the death of fellow rapper King Von. Federal officials believe that order led to the 2022 killing of Rondo’s cousin, Saviay’a Robinson, who was shot and killed in Los Angeles.

Durk has denied the allegations. As his trial approaches, the question of whether his music will be allowed as evidence could shape not only his defense, but also a much larger legal conversation.

The fight over Durk’s lyrics fits into a broader movement pushing back against the use of rap as criminal evidence. In 2022, Jay-Z, Meek Mill, Big Sean, Robin Thicke, Killer Mike, Fat Joe, Vic Mensa, and others supported efforts to change New York law to limit the use of rap lyrics in court.

The Rap Music on Trial bill would prevent prosecutors from using lyrics as evidence in most cases. State Sens. Brad Hoylman and Jamaal Bailey introduced the legislation. “Across the country, we are seeing a disturbing trend of prosecutors introducing an artist's work product as evidence against them in a criminal trial,” Hoylman told FOX 5 NY in November 2021. “Prosecutors are telling the judge and the jury, ‘You should take this music, the words to the music, literally.’”

Not everyone agrees with that view. Marion County Prosecutor Ryan Mears has argued that lyrics can sometimes reflect real events. “The lyrics in the song very much reflected what took place in the crime,” Mears said. “In terms of what people knew of what took place inside that apartment, this was not widely distributed information that you could know unless you were there.”

While courts continue to wrestle with these questions, lawmakers across the country have started to act. According to RapOnTrial.org, Assembly Bill No. 2799 was signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom on September 30, 2022, and became law on January 1, 2023. That made California the first state to pass legislation restricting the use of art as evidence.

The law requires “a court, in a criminal proceeding where a party seeks to admit as evidence a form of creative expression, to consider specified factors when balancing the probative value of that evidence against the substantial danger of undue prejudice.” In short, judges must think carefully before allowing art into evidence.

Louisiana has considered a similar approach. House Bill 475 was introduced during the state’s 2023 Regular Session to enact Code of Criminal Procedure Article 718.2. The proposal would prohibit the admissibility of a defendant’s creative or artistic expression, outline exceptions, set rules for jury instructions, and define key terms related to evidence.

New York has also taken steps. The “Rap Music on Trial” bill, known as S7527, passed the state senate on May 17, 2022. While it does not completely ban lyrics or other creative material from being shown to a jury, it limits the use of “creative expression” as evidence of a crime. The bill still needs approval from the New York State Assembly before it can move forward to the governor.

Similar legislation has been introduced or discussed in other states, including New Jersey, Maryland, Missouri, and Illinois, showing how widespread the issue has become.

At the federal level, H.R.8531, titled the Restoring Artistic Protection Act of 2022, also known as the RAP Act, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressmen Hank Johnson of Georgia and Jamaal Bowman of New York. The measure aims to change the Federal Rules of Evidence by adding a presumption “that would limit the admissibility of evidence of an artist’s creative or artistic expression against that artist in court.”

Legal scholars say rap lyrics can unfairly shape how jurors see defendants. “The government is able to rely on the evidence to paint the picture either expressly or impliedly of the defendants as violent, hypermasculine, as danger to community, which draws on biases jurors may have with respect to defendants,” said University of Georgia law professor Andrea Dennis, a co-author of Rap on Trial.

“When the lyrics are admitted, they're toxic, they infect the case, and they almost ensure that the government is going to obtain a conviction,” Dennis said.

There have been rare exceptions. In 2014, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ordered a new trial for Vonte Skinner after prosecutors used his lyrics to secure a homicide conviction. The court ruled that “rap lyrics... may not be used as evidence of motive and intent except when such material has a direct connection to the specifics of the offense for which it is offered in evidence and the evidence's probative value is not outweighed by its apparent prejudice.”

“That was a bit of an exceptional case because it was 13 pages of lyrics in what was otherwise a weak case,” Dennis said.

More often, she argues, defense experts are needed to explain rap’s history and creative norms to judges and juries.

Some courts still side with prosecutors. In late 2020, Maryland’s highest court praised hip-hop’s rise from a Bronx community center to global influence before upholding the use of a suspect’s rap lyrics as evidence, despite a strong dissent.

Mears insists careful use is possible. “The genre and the music's not on trial. It's the lyrics as they relate to this specific factual scenario,” he said.

Dennis remains unconvinced. After reviewing thousands of cases, she believes only a total ban can truly address racial bias. “In my decade of research, I haven't come across a case in which I’m convinced a court has made an appropriate decision to admit lyrics as criminal evidence,” she said.

The debate has played out before, including in the 2019 case of Tekashi 6ix9ine, where federal authorities used lyrics to help establish gang ties before the rapper pleaded guilty and cooperated.

As Lil Durk’s trial draws closer, the judge’s ruling on his music could resonate far beyond one courtroom.