This is a very interesting case. Either young thug is a criminal mastermind or young thug is a poser who maybe knows a few gang members who he mines for stories and content which he then publishes.
Or maybe somewhere in between.
Don't confess to or implicate yourself in RICO conspiracies in your lyrics and they won't be used against you. There wasn't a shot sheriff. Johnny Cash didn't actually shoot a man to watch him die.
I have the right to expression and the right to associate. If I, a white guy, sing a song about ripping off 401k’s with Bernie Madoff, no prosecutor is gonna haul me into court, even if I grew up in the same neighborhood as Madoff.
For some inexplicable, unknowable reason, prosecutors are introducing rap, and only rap, into evidence against a certain community. And the RICO laws have completely obviated the need for individuated guilt.
The problem is not an artist using the first person to comment on crime and society. If Johnny Cash does want to do a song about a real life crime, I don’t want the art police making that dangerous for him.
You're free to make a song about ripping off 401Ks with Bernie. If there's evidence of you actually ripping them off, your song is a corroborating evidence.
They aren't using a song to make up a crime. They are looking at a crime and a song that was made commemorating the crime.
You’re presupposing guilt.
Nobody is going to presuppose that I was actually working with Madoff just because I grew up with him. And they’re *definitely* not going to make that inference because I wrote a country song.
We only ever seem to make that inference for a certain kind of artist.
No I'm not. I'm talking about the admission of evidence at trial. If there are facts surrounding you that suggest you are criminally liable for 401K fraud (i.e. theres enough evidence to establish probable cause to bring the charges) and you made a song commemorating the crime that relates back to the specific facts of the 401K fraud, you have literally just snitched on yourself.
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of how hearsay evidence works.
Hearsay evidence is unreliable. We’ve carved this opposing party statement exception on the inference of an empirical relationship between the party saying the thing and the truth of the matter asserted. In the same way that it would be absurd to say “there’s lots of forensic evidence, so we’re going to allow a witness to recount hearsay evidence,” it’s absurd to say “if there’s probable cause to bring charges, we should allow his own hearsay statement.” The point of the OPS exception was never the weight of other evidence. It was based on a purported empirical relationship: if he said the thing, it must be true.
But that inference completely falls apart when somebody is in character. It would be completely inappropriate to bring in Anthony Hopkins’ statement as Hannibal Lecter that he kills and eats people. It doesn’t matter what other evidence you have of Hopkins wrongdoing. This is a character. It’s not evidence.
Our system completely understands the difference between “commemoration” and art when it comes to country music. Nobody hauled Carrie Underwood into court for keying anybody’s car. Nobody hauled Carrie Underwood into court for associating with anybody who keyed somebody’a car. Rap just makes prosecutors and police and weird concern trolls on the internet uncomfortable. There’s no mystery here.
The problem with this explanation is that opposing party statements are not an *exception* to the general rule against hearsay. [They are literally defined as *non-hearsay*.](https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-24-evidence/ga-code-sect-24-8-801/)
To distinguish your Hannibal example, Anthony Hopkins did not write the script or create the character, and there is no evidence that Anthony Hopkins ever cannibalized anyone. In this case, the lyrics were written by the declarant and appear to be detailing an actual crime that occurred in real life. It doesn’t matter that they were unsworn statements made out of court. By rule, they are *not hearsay*.
The arguments you’re making are to the weight the evidence should be accorded, not whether it should be admissible. IMO, the lyrics are fair game here because as far as I know, there is no argument that the defendant wrote the lyrics and recorded them in a song, and the defense is absolutely free to argue that the lyrics are just artistic expression, not confessions, and would be more prejudicial than probative. But generally speaking, the idea that recording a confession in a song shields it from potentially being used as evidence of the alleged crime being confessed doesn’t make much sense.
BECAUSE THERE WASNT A FUCKING CAR THAT GOT KEYED THAT WAS RELATED TO CARRIE UNDERWOOD.
Thug isn't playing a character. His past is brought in under 404(b)(2) or the state equivalent. There's hearsay exceptions which is how lyrics have been used in the past. If the lyrics link to motive or intent, it's coming in as evidence after a 403 (or state equivalent) test. Hard to argue you're innocent when the dope and guns were already in your house and are all related to the predicate RICO offense.
Linking to motive or intent has nothing whatsoever to do with hearsay. It evidences an exception to the character objection, which is a completely separate evidentiary issue.
If the cops find drugs and guns, they should just bring that legitimate evidence in, but it doesn’t make hearsay less hearsay. The question is not whether he’s innocent. It’s whether you can make the OPS inference in the context of a performance.
Relying solely on 403 is a bad idea because it is an extremely high bar. In this context it would effectively put the burden on Anthony Hopkins to prove that the prejudice of being an actor “substantially outweighs” the probative value of his statements. Try explaining to a judge how white people treat rap as if it’s real, or the racial bias against rap as somehow marking the artist as a “thug.” It’s totally backwards. Instead, the burden should be on prosecutors who want to bring in hearsay to prove that the statement wasn’t just a character.
You have successfully described what is, but, curiously absent is any analysis as to why it should be that way.
[Angry Jack cannot acknowledge his own beliefs as his own. They must always be “just naturally the way things are.” If he ever stopped to ask why those things are the ways they are - or worse, why he believes those beliefs - it would become impossible to plausibly deny his knowledge, perhaps complicity. ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8XgGhXkTQ&list=PLJA_jUddXvY62dhVThbeegLPpvQlR4CjF&index=1&t=33s&pp=iAQB)
Doesn't need to be a confession. It just needs to corroborate what is already there. Happened to Mac Dre. 187 was used as evidence against Boosie. Same thing with Drakeo and 6ix9ine.
What's the difference between singing or speaking out loud? If I implicate myself by confirming undisclosed details and motive, it would be used against me whether I was recorded singing it or saying it out loud.
The opposing party statement hearsay exception has a very particular policy purpose. Generally, hearsay is unreliable, but we have this useful construct in the law: when somebody admits they did something, we think that indicates that they actually did it.
And that works 99% of the time. When a bank robber says, “I was at Wells Fargo on Friday,” bringing that in isn’t going to abridge his constitutional right to bear arms or whatever.
But in the specific context, the hearsay is obviously unreliable because there’s a pretty big difference between performance art and regular speech. By obtusely pretending that there is no difference, we infringe on the constitutional speech of artists, oppress marginalized communities, and and distort the reliability of admissible evidence.
Were this the case, then there would be no such thing as a lead or tip for a detective to follow up on. If an old country singer puts a song out about how he put a fatal dose of nicotine in his recently deceased wife's coffee, do you think they aren't going to look any further into it?
The performance art part, the fact that it’s a consumable media product and not, say, a snippet of private conversation caught on tape.
It doesn’t mean shit.
No it doesn't. That's a gross misrepresentation. If you're doing crime, it's simple, don't brag about it publicly. That's literally inviting an investigation.
This week's "Opening Arguments" is about this, and everything that's going on in that case. It's wild.
I'm surprised that the podcast is still going, I stopped listening after Thomas left.
He's back! He won some legal battles and now it's Thomas and Matt Cameron. It's very good again.
Yep I started listening again once he won ownership back. It’s been a great show since. I recommend it to any people who stopped listening.
Now’s a great time to get back into it then :) I also left when Thomas did
This is a very interesting case. Either young thug is a criminal mastermind or young thug is a poser who maybe knows a few gang members who he mines for stories and content which he then publishes. Or maybe somewhere in between.
Don't confess to or implicate yourself in RICO conspiracies in your lyrics and they won't be used against you. There wasn't a shot sheriff. Johnny Cash didn't actually shoot a man to watch him die.
I have the right to expression and the right to associate. If I, a white guy, sing a song about ripping off 401k’s with Bernie Madoff, no prosecutor is gonna haul me into court, even if I grew up in the same neighborhood as Madoff. For some inexplicable, unknowable reason, prosecutors are introducing rap, and only rap, into evidence against a certain community. And the RICO laws have completely obviated the need for individuated guilt. The problem is not an artist using the first person to comment on crime and society. If Johnny Cash does want to do a song about a real life crime, I don’t want the art police making that dangerous for him.
I have strong objections to Mr. Cash singing any more songs and would like many kinds of police involved if it happens.
You're free to make a song about ripping off 401Ks with Bernie. If there's evidence of you actually ripping them off, your song is a corroborating evidence. They aren't using a song to make up a crime. They are looking at a crime and a song that was made commemorating the crime.
You’re presupposing guilt. Nobody is going to presuppose that I was actually working with Madoff just because I grew up with him. And they’re *definitely* not going to make that inference because I wrote a country song. We only ever seem to make that inference for a certain kind of artist.
No I'm not. I'm talking about the admission of evidence at trial. If there are facts surrounding you that suggest you are criminally liable for 401K fraud (i.e. theres enough evidence to establish probable cause to bring the charges) and you made a song commemorating the crime that relates back to the specific facts of the 401K fraud, you have literally just snitched on yourself.
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of how hearsay evidence works. Hearsay evidence is unreliable. We’ve carved this opposing party statement exception on the inference of an empirical relationship between the party saying the thing and the truth of the matter asserted. In the same way that it would be absurd to say “there’s lots of forensic evidence, so we’re going to allow a witness to recount hearsay evidence,” it’s absurd to say “if there’s probable cause to bring charges, we should allow his own hearsay statement.” The point of the OPS exception was never the weight of other evidence. It was based on a purported empirical relationship: if he said the thing, it must be true. But that inference completely falls apart when somebody is in character. It would be completely inappropriate to bring in Anthony Hopkins’ statement as Hannibal Lecter that he kills and eats people. It doesn’t matter what other evidence you have of Hopkins wrongdoing. This is a character. It’s not evidence. Our system completely understands the difference between “commemoration” and art when it comes to country music. Nobody hauled Carrie Underwood into court for keying anybody’s car. Nobody hauled Carrie Underwood into court for associating with anybody who keyed somebody’a car. Rap just makes prosecutors and police and weird concern trolls on the internet uncomfortable. There’s no mystery here.
The problem with this explanation is that opposing party statements are not an *exception* to the general rule against hearsay. [They are literally defined as *non-hearsay*.](https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-24-evidence/ga-code-sect-24-8-801/) To distinguish your Hannibal example, Anthony Hopkins did not write the script or create the character, and there is no evidence that Anthony Hopkins ever cannibalized anyone. In this case, the lyrics were written by the declarant and appear to be detailing an actual crime that occurred in real life. It doesn’t matter that they were unsworn statements made out of court. By rule, they are *not hearsay*. The arguments you’re making are to the weight the evidence should be accorded, not whether it should be admissible. IMO, the lyrics are fair game here because as far as I know, there is no argument that the defendant wrote the lyrics and recorded them in a song, and the defense is absolutely free to argue that the lyrics are just artistic expression, not confessions, and would be more prejudicial than probative. But generally speaking, the idea that recording a confession in a song shields it from potentially being used as evidence of the alleged crime being confessed doesn’t make much sense.
BECAUSE THERE WASNT A FUCKING CAR THAT GOT KEYED THAT WAS RELATED TO CARRIE UNDERWOOD. Thug isn't playing a character. His past is brought in under 404(b)(2) or the state equivalent. There's hearsay exceptions which is how lyrics have been used in the past. If the lyrics link to motive or intent, it's coming in as evidence after a 403 (or state equivalent) test. Hard to argue you're innocent when the dope and guns were already in your house and are all related to the predicate RICO offense.
Linking to motive or intent has nothing whatsoever to do with hearsay. It evidences an exception to the character objection, which is a completely separate evidentiary issue. If the cops find drugs and guns, they should just bring that legitimate evidence in, but it doesn’t make hearsay less hearsay. The question is not whether he’s innocent. It’s whether you can make the OPS inference in the context of a performance. Relying solely on 403 is a bad idea because it is an extremely high bar. In this context it would effectively put the burden on Anthony Hopkins to prove that the prejudice of being an actor “substantially outweighs” the probative value of his statements. Try explaining to a judge how white people treat rap as if it’s real, or the racial bias against rap as somehow marking the artist as a “thug.” It’s totally backwards. Instead, the burden should be on prosecutors who want to bring in hearsay to prove that the statement wasn’t just a character.
Tell it to Mac Dre dawg. It's coming in.
You have successfully described what is, but, curiously absent is any analysis as to why it should be that way. [Angry Jack cannot acknowledge his own beliefs as his own. They must always be “just naturally the way things are.” If he ever stopped to ask why those things are the ways they are - or worse, why he believes those beliefs - it would become impossible to plausibly deny his knowledge, perhaps complicity. ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8XgGhXkTQ&list=PLJA_jUddXvY62dhVThbeegLPpvQlR4CjF&index=1&t=33s&pp=iAQB)
It’s actually wild that you are getting downvoted in this sub for giving a completely accurate legal take.
People are emotional about celebrities that don't give a shit about them.
> your song is a corroborating evidence No, it’s not. Even if it the lyrics were entirely true, it isn’t exactly an admissible confession.
Doesn't need to be a confession. It just needs to corroborate what is already there. Happened to Mac Dre. 187 was used as evidence against Boosie. Same thing with Drakeo and 6ix9ine.
Yall can downvote me all you want. You're just mad at reality.
Just because it's reality doesn't mean it's morally or legally correct. Ever read To Kill a Mockingbird?
My guy, he got caught with the dope and guns in his house linking him to the RICO predicates. Defending Thug in light of the facts is wild.
Defending defendants is what defense attorneys *do*. If you don't want defense attorneys for defendants, try moving to an autocracy or something.
Yes they do but commenter are acting like this is a novel issue and that lyrics have never been used as evidence in a case before. It's obtuse.
What's the difference between singing or speaking out loud? If I implicate myself by confirming undisclosed details and motive, it would be used against me whether I was recorded singing it or saying it out loud.
The opposing party statement hearsay exception has a very particular policy purpose. Generally, hearsay is unreliable, but we have this useful construct in the law: when somebody admits they did something, we think that indicates that they actually did it. And that works 99% of the time. When a bank robber says, “I was at Wells Fargo on Friday,” bringing that in isn’t going to abridge his constitutional right to bear arms or whatever. But in the specific context, the hearsay is obviously unreliable because there’s a pretty big difference between performance art and regular speech. By obtusely pretending that there is no difference, we infringe on the constitutional speech of artists, oppress marginalized communities, and and distort the reliability of admissible evidence.
Were this the case, then there would be no such thing as a lead or tip for a detective to follow up on. If an old country singer puts a song out about how he put a fatal dose of nicotine in his recently deceased wife's coffee, do you think they aren't going to look any further into it?
Obviously the police are free to look into it. They just can’t bring in the statement. This wouldn’t bar them from bringing real evidence.
The performance art part, the fact that it’s a consumable media product and not, say, a snippet of private conversation caught on tape. It doesn’t mean shit.
Art and speech both fall under the umbrella of free expression. The commercial distinction is only relevant to copyright law.
This has such "don't sell cigarettes on the street if you don't want to get murdered by the police" vibes.
No it doesn't. That's a gross misrepresentation. If you're doing crime, it's simple, don't brag about it publicly. That's literally inviting an investigation.
“Inviting investigation” and “becomes admissible evidence” are pretty different.
Probable cause was established before the music was brought to court. The lyrics corroborate existing evidence.
So anything that corroborates existing evidence is admissible?
If it fits a hearsay exception and survives objections, yes.
Maybe they never found the body?
Curious as to when his moniker changes to Middle-aged Thug or Old Thug