State of Iowa v. Lawrence George Canady III

At Lawrence Canady’s trial on charges arising from a fatal shooting, the state introduced evidence of a video, recorded several days before the shooting, that depicted Mr. Canady rapping along to a popular “diss track” by a Chicago rap group. The prosecution argued that the song was relevant because it mentioned several people by name, including one name that sounded like the alleged nickname of the shooting victim in this case.

The amicus brief submitted by the ACLU argues that rap lyrics are rarely, if ever, probative of a criminal defendant’s guilt. People often quote from and perform violent media written by others, from Shakespeare to Quentin Tarantino to Steven King, without having those words used against them. Songs should be no different. And rap does not reside in some special corner of the artistic universe in which everything said is true. Just as singing along to Johnny Cash’s Folsom Prison Blues is not evidence that the singer “shot a man in Reno,” rapping along to someone else’s “diss track” is not evidence that the rapper has criminal intent.

Additionally, the brief highlights how injecting rap lyrics into a criminal case risks profound and undue prejudice. Decades of research demonstrate that juries are likely to form negative perceptions of defendants when they are associated with rap music. Juries are likely to view rap lyrics more literally than lyrics from other genres, are more likely to associate rap music with criminal activity and are more likely to believe that rappers have poor moral character. Thus, for good reason, courts across the country have recognized the strong prejudicial impact of admitting rap music and rap lyrics into evidence in criminal trials. The ACLU’s brief argues that the Iowa Supreme Court should do the same.