Song Lyrics as Evidence in a Criminal Case

[TheFuzzDog]

If someone admits to someone that they committed a crime that statement is admissible against him. If the lyrics to a song tell the story of how the songwriter committed a crime then they'd be admissible against that songwriter.

"I fought the law and the law won"...original.

"I fought the law and I won"...the Dead Kennedys.

By this logic, Bobby Pickett really did have a monster rising from the slab.

 

[Jakedog]

No, it's not immunity. However, any lawyer worth the money should be able to blow holes through a case if the premise is that an artist's lyrics demonstrate that artist's character. Many musical artists are playing a role in the music they create, and even if we're uncomfortable with that role, it is still simply a role.

Unless it isn’t. There was a case here in town several years ago that got world wide media attention. Local creepy bass player was found to have at least seven bodies in his house, parts of others, and a head in a bucket. Yeah, he’d written songs about what he was doing.

The songs weren’t what got him caught, but it serves to remind us that sometimes we should pay better attention to this stuff.

 

[Rick330man]

By this logic, Bobby Pickett really did have a monster rising from the slab.

It is going to be case specific.

To paraphrase Ice T: do you believe David Bowie was an astronaut or that maybe he lived on Mars?

 

[Red Ryder]

It is going to be case specific.

To paraphrase Ice T: do you believe David Bowie was an astronaut or that maybe he lived on Mars?

Are you saying he wasn't and didn't?

 

[suthol]

We had a report about youth crime on local TV a month or so back and they were talking about "Drill" music.

I'd never heard the expression but it was a type of rap and the lyrics were specifically about what each of the gangs either had done or were going to do to each other so I could see that being used in evidence.

The "artists" were quite blase about being bashed or shot, they just didn't care

 

[redhouse_ca]

Some hilarious shenanigans here:

When Felonies Become Form: The Secret History of Artists Who Use Lawbreaking as Their Medium

Artists have long gotten away with murder, sometimes literally. After Benvenuto Cellini killed his rival, the goldsmith Pompeo de Capitaneis, in 1534, Pope Paul III—a Cellini fan—reportedly pardone…

www.artnews.com

Interesting. I know a painter who always takes a leak outside the bar on the street. Not sure why, I never asked. Figured I'd not indulge the matter

 

[redhouse_ca]

We had a report about youth crime on local TV a month or so back and they were talking about "Drill" music.

I'd never heard the expression but it was a type of rap and the lyrics were specifically about what each of the gangs either had done or were going to do to each other so I could see that being used in evidence.

The "artists" were quite blase about being bashed or shot, they just didn't care

Yeah, I thought about that and I see your point and I'm tempted to agree but I just feel like where do you draw the line? I like the velvet underground a lot. I can imagine a lot of they Lou Reed was writing about back then wouldn't pass for appropriate or legal behavior in a lot of places. I also don't doubt he was doing the the things he wrote about. I guess Lou reeds "crimes" were victimless (aside from offended sensibilities, and thank god we don't yet have a law to protect hurt feelings). but it's hard for me to leave it to a jury of myself peers to decide.

 

[redhouse_ca]

I get where you’re coming from and generally agree. But if you don’t know anything about the case, then, well, you don’t know. If there were something in the lyrics that indicates knowledge of something only the murderer would know, wouldn’t that matter? I’m not saying that’s the case, just asking hypothetically. I know nothing about the case either.

Yeah, I hear you, and I get your point and respect it. Does it matter tho? Like his music or not; it's art. Don't you think he should be able to sing about whatever he wants? Also, I can't imagine the case rests on that or it's not a strong case.

I dunno, I just feel when it comes to art, unless it's imminent threat, go to town.

 

[redhouse_ca]

This will probably be very unpopular but ....... I have little respect for any artist that records something they don't believe in or agree with. So ..... yes. I could see someone using the work of an artist as an example of their beliefs or their take on "right and wrong". Because of the average age of buyers of new music I have to place a responsibility for song content on the artist. New music influences those who will one day assume positions of power in this world. To knowingly create content that could subvert the tenets of right and wrong in the minds that own the future is a disservice to all mankind.

No such thing as bad taste to the person who has that taste. I also like honesty in the art, but not always. Like someone else posted, actors pretend for a living. But if is missed the point, which is that there has to me an honest authenticity, I def prefer that. As far as judging the art or artist, I know I do it sometime (even when I don't realize it) but I don't like myself when I do.

 

[redhouse_ca]

They're not relying solely on that and they do have much more that's conclusive, if we're talking about Young Thug. 28 people getting hit with RICO charges doesn't happen on the basis of lyrics.

Like OP, I don't know much about the case either which is why I don't have strident opinions about it, but I agree people shouldn't be thrown in jail for song lyrics and I don't think they are. I do think if you are on a literal record saying "yes I sell drugs and here are some of my friends who help me," and they have other pieces of evidence, it's fair game, regardless of what I think about the drug war.

Of course, this is always going to be the real issue around rap music. Completely unsurprising.



Plenty of good info about the case in the same article.

Rappers' Own Lyrics Are Putting Them in Jail – Now the Music Industry Is Fighting Back

www.msn.com

Tell 'em DOOM

"Rap snitches, telling all their business
Sit in the court and be their own star witness
'Do you see the perpetrator?'
'Yeah, I'm right here!'
[mess] around, get the whole label sent up for years"

We are taking about the same guy, and if they need to lyrics to make the case, do you think that it's a solid case? If they don't need the lyrics to make the case, why include them. All I can think is to paint a negative character image of him, which i guess is a fair strategy, but man, I just think it crosses a line. I'm tryin to weight pros cons and the con side for the right to free expression is practically flipping the whole scale over.

 

[redhouse_ca]

Unless it isn’t. There was a case here in town several years ago that got world wide media attention. Local creepy bass player was found to have at least seven bodies in his house, parts of others, and a head in a bucket. Yeah, he’d written songs about what he was doing.

The songs weren’t what got him caught, but it serves to remind us that sometimes we should pay better attention to this stuff.

You bring up a good point. In that situation, I think it's an imminent threat, and the law accommodates that. In Israel there they call it the ticking bomb exception, or something like that. I'm fine with the law getting lose with that right to stop a crime like that or find a criminal like the bass player scum bag. So maybe the other poster who pointed out I need to know the details of the case to say one way or another. Maybe I've just changed my mind.

 

[redhouse_ca]

I get where you’re coming from and generally agree. But if you don’t know anything about the case, then, well, you don’t know. If there were something in the lyrics that indicates knowledge of something only the murderer would know, wouldn’t that matter? I’m not saying that’s the case, just asking hypothetically. I know nothing about the case either.

I think I now agree. The details do matter.

But man, if it's a really clear line. If it's anything but that kind of thing, the DA should not use lyrics. Ha, there I go again, I don't know anything about the case and still gabbing

 

[Sparky472]

I think I now agree. The details do matter.

But man, if it's a really clear line. If it's anything but that kind of thing, the DA should not use lyrics. Ha, there I go again, I don't know anything about the case and still gabbing

Yep, I get where you’re coming from. But—and again, I know zero about this particular case—let’s say someone is murdered, and let’s say he’s stabbed with a silver letter opener and the killer then draws a heart on the wall. Further we’ll say the police keep those details from the public. Then a month later some “artist” puts out a record in which he describes stabbing someone with a silver letter opener and then drawing a heart on the wall. That’s no longer art. It’s evidence. As speech, it’s protected, but that doesn’t mean it loses all evidentiary value.

 

[Timbresmith1]

This will probably be very unpopular but ....... I have little respect for any artist that records something they don't believe in or agree with. So ..... yes. I could see someone using the work of an artist as an example of their beliefs or their take on "right and wrong". Because of the average age of buyers of new music I have to place a responsibility for song content on the artist. New music influences those who will one day assume positions of power in this world. To knowingly create content that could subvert the tenets of right and wrong in the minds that own the future is a disservice to all mankind.

So Irony is out?

 

[teletimetx]

There is no place in Louisiana that is “just about a mile from Texarkana”.

Geographers everywhere should take offense, but they have no claim upon which relief may be granted.

Every trial court has rules concerning what may be admitted as evidence. There is a process.

Sometimes the rules and the procedures get tested, but there are rules for that event as well.

Does it work perfectly or even fairly? Why would you expect it to, it’s a human construct - dependent on the designs and intentions of the humans pursuing it.

It’s up to you to make it better, if you believe it needs improvement, repair or replacement

 

[Rick330man]

Bowie...Mars...

 

[Rick330man]

Are you saying he wasn't and didn't?

Well, I'd hate to find out he's really from Uranus.

 

[Trenchant63]

I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die...

You have the right to remain silent …..

 

[Trenchant63]

I'd rather see you dead, little girl, then to be with another man? Really. Beatles.

Really Elvis?!!! 1955 Baby Let’s Play House …

 

[Trenchant63]

Yeah, I thought about that and I see your point and I'm tempted to agree but I just feel like where do you draw the line? I like the velvet underground a lot. I can imagine a lot of they Lou Reed was writing about back then wouldn't pass for appropriate or legal behavior in a lot of places. I also don't doubt he was doing the the things he wrote about. I guess Lou reeds "crimes" were victimless (aside from offended sensibilities, and thank god we don't yet have a law to protect hurt feelings). but it's hard for me to leave it to a jury of myself peers to decide.

You are conflating a bunch of different stuff together (e.g. socially inappropriate lyrics vs direct violent threats in a song). To me it’s simple - if the song had a direct threat against an individual and a murder occurred afterwards exactly as described, why not use as evidence? By itself, it wouldn’t be enough but grouped with other compelling evidence, it wouldn’t hurt the prosecution. It could explain motive if the song lyric had a beef described in it. Was Lou Reed issuing death threats in his lyrics? Not a sarcastic question - I honestly don’t know.