Federal Judge Excludes Some Rap Lyrics from Lil Durk's Murder-for-Hire Trial, Weighing Others' Admissibility
A federal judge has ruled that specific rap lyrics from Chicago-based rapper Lil Durk will be excluded as evidence in his upcoming murder-for-hire trial. The decision came after prosecutors and defense lawyers clashed over the admissibility of rap lyrics and music videos.
Prosecutors aim to admit 12 songs, claiming Durk used his money for violence as the alleged leader of an "OTF" gang. Defense lawyers, however, seek to bar all lyrics from the trial, arguing they are hyperbolic poetry that carry an "extraordinary risk" of being misunderstood by jurors.
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald has ruled on one song, "Hanging with Wolves," excluding specific lyrics that prosecutors claimed bolstered their theory that Durk attempted to flee the country at the time of his arrest. The judge deemed these lyrics as inadmissible material attempting to show Durk's willingness to flee.
Durk, 33, is accused of hiring a group of hitmen to travel to Los Angeles and carry out an execution-style killing on August 19, 2022. Prosecutors say the intended target was Tyquian Terrel Bowman, aka Quando Rondo, whom Durk allegedly believed was involved in the 2020 shooting death of his friend and protégé Dayvon Bennett, known as King Von.
The trial is scheduled to begin April 21, but scheduling issues could delay its start. Durk's lawyers are pushing back against prosecutors' efforts to use rap lyrics, arguing that they can be prejudicial and create undue bias in the courtroom.
"This is art, this is music," defense lawyer Marissa Goldberg said during a hearing. "But there's no doubt it's prejudicial in criminal trials... The government wants to use it in extraordinary abundance."
A federal judge has ruled that specific rap lyrics from Chicago-based rapper Lil Durk will be excluded as evidence in his upcoming murder-for-hire trial. The decision came after prosecutors and defense lawyers clashed over the admissibility of rap lyrics and music videos.
Prosecutors aim to admit 12 songs, claiming Durk used his money for violence as the alleged leader of an "OTF" gang. Defense lawyers, however, seek to bar all lyrics from the trial, arguing they are hyperbolic poetry that carry an "extraordinary risk" of being misunderstood by jurors.
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald has ruled on one song, "Hanging with Wolves," excluding specific lyrics that prosecutors claimed bolstered their theory that Durk attempted to flee the country at the time of his arrest. The judge deemed these lyrics as inadmissible material attempting to show Durk's willingness to flee.
Durk, 33, is accused of hiring a group of hitmen to travel to Los Angeles and carry out an execution-style killing on August 19, 2022. Prosecutors say the intended target was Tyquian Terrel Bowman, aka Quando Rondo, whom Durk allegedly believed was involved in the 2020 shooting death of his friend and protégé Dayvon Bennett, known as King Von.
The trial is scheduled to begin April 21, but scheduling issues could delay its start. Durk's lawyers are pushing back against prosecutors' efforts to use rap lyrics, arguing that they can be prejudicial and create undue bias in the courtroom.
"This is art, this is music," defense lawyer Marissa Goldberg said during a hearing. "But there's no doubt it's prejudicial in criminal trials... The government wants to use it in extraordinary abundance."
... so the judge is excluding some of Lil Durk's lyrics but letting others in? Like, what even is the criteria here? 
Is it just a matter of how "prejudicial" they are to the case or does the prosecution have to provide more concrete evidence that these lyrics actually contribute to their theory? 
I mean, as someone who's all about layout and structure in my online content, I can appreciate the importance of presenting information in a clear and concise manner - but when it comes to court cases, things get super murky. 
Maybe the defense could try to present the lyrics themselves as part of their argument? Like, show how they're actually meant to be read as poetry rather than evidence? 
I'm all for defending artistic expression, btw. 
.
. And now Lil Durk's being accused of wanting him dead? It just seems so crazy. I guess that's why we have judges and lawyers who can figure all this out, right? 
it's like they're trying to paint Lil Durk as this monster without even understanding the context of his music. i mean, if the defense is saying that the lyrics are hyperbolic poetry then shouldn't prosecutors be able to handle them? shouldn't they know how to take a song with 100 different meanings and not get their hopes up on just one?
Like what's gonna happen if they just play one song, is it gonna sway the jury or something? I mean, Lil Durk has a right to express himself through his music and all 
But at the same time, its like, if he's accused of doing some bad stuff, shouldn't we listen to what he says too? 
his life is already on the line and now they're trying to take away an important part of who he is? that song "Hanging with Wolves" sounds super deep 
idk about the lyrics being misunderstood by jurors tho, like isn't that what rap is all about? expressing yourself and telling your story? 
. Like, isn't music just a form of self-expression? Can't his team figure out what he meant instead of just excluding all the lyrics? 
Its kinda wild that prosecutors and defense lawyers are fighting over this too 
. The gov's trying to prove some deep-seated intentions or something but rap lyrics can easily be taken out of context, right? 
. They must be super stressed about the trial and trying to protect their artist's image. I get why the prosecutors want to include some of those lyrics, they can be seen as incriminating or evasive... but at the same time, you gotta wonder if they're being too aggressive with this whole rap lyric thing 
. It's a tricky situation, and the judge seems like a fair one 
. I hope it all works out and Lil Durk gets a good defense, whoever represents him 
.
. Like, isn't that just a fancy way of saying "I don't want to deal with this"? It's a total mess. And the defense lawyer's point about it being art and potentially biased? 
finally someone speaking up against these prosecutors' antics.
. Can we just have some actual justice already?