Prosecutors Use Lyrics, Diary Entries as Evidence in Georgia RICO Cases

In separate criminal racketeering cases, prosecutors are using rap lyrics and the personal diary of a protester shot and killed by police as evidence.

Georgia prosecutors in different jurisdictions are using defendants' speech and writings as evidence in racketeering cases, a move that could have terrible ramifications for the First Amendment.

Congress passed the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in 1970; more than 30 U.S. states, including Georgia, have passed their own versions in the years since. Nominally intended for use against criminal organizations like the Mafia, RICO statutes allow prosecutors to charge a large number of defendants by demonstrating that they are all part of a single criminal enterprise.

Prosecutors in Georgia are currently involved in three different high-profile RICO cases: the state attorney general's case against 61 protesters who oppose the construction of a police training facility; Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis's prosecution of former President Donald Trump over attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election; and Willis's case against alleged gang members, including rapper Young Thug, which began this week after a ten-month jury selection process.

In the latter case, prosecutors allege that the rapper—born Jeffery Williams—was a founding member of the criminal street gang YSL, which is said to have committed numerous violent crimes over the previous decade, including murder, assault, and armed robbery. The indictment refers to YSL as a criminal enterprise and lists numerous "overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy," including the lyrics to a number of songs: The indictment cites Williams' appearance in music videos for songs with lyrics like "I killed his man in front of his momma" and "I get all type of cash, I'm a general."

Earlier this month, Fulton County Superior Court Chief Judge Ural Glanville ruled that prosecutors would be allowed to present lyrics as evidence at trial.

Last year, Willis defended the practice of using lyrics as evidence, saying "If you decide to admit your crimes over a beat, I'm going to use it." She further pledged that "you do not get to commit crimes in my county and then decide to brag on it, which you do as a form of intimidation, and not be held responsible."

The practice is controversial. After Williams' indictment, numerous music industry stakeholders—including Warner Music Group, Sony Music Group, and Universal Music Group, as well as organizations like SoundCloud, Spotify, and the American Civil Liberties Union, plus multiple legal scholars and musicians—signed an open letter calling for an end to the use of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials. The signatories called the practice "un-American and simply wrong," constituting "an obvious disregard for free speech and creative expression protected by the First Amendment."

In 2014, Damon Root wrote in Reason that "the First Amendment plainly includes the freedom to write about violent, gruesome, and offensive things without facing legal persecution for having done so."

Meanwhile, in the case against several dozen activists who oppose a police training facility, prosecutors are trying to use a deceased protester's diary as evidence.

In January 2023, Manuel Esteban Paez Terán was shot and killed by police who were clearing protesters from a forest encampment. While law enforcement officials claim Paez Terán shot first, the county medical examiner was unable to find gunpowder residue on the activist's hands.

Earlier this month, Georgia Deputy Attorney General John Fowler filed a motion seeking to use Paez Terán's diary, which was allegedly found at the scene, as evidence in the RICO trial. "The diary entries consist of violent anti-police rhetoric and drawings, notes on meetings in the forest, to do lists regarding various tasks including committing crime, philosophical musings about the tyranny of government, and other personal writings," Fowler notes. The motion calls Paez Terán a "co-conspirator" whose statements are therefore admissible as evidence.

The diary does contain numerous references to violence, including against both police officers and police property. But as The Guardian notes, "only about a dozen of the diary's 150 or so pages were written while the activist was camped in protest against the training center at a public park near the project's planned site, and none of those pages contains such material."

Indeed, the vast majority of the diary was written in 2021, long before the events of the current protest movement.

Besides, just as with rap lyrics, using a person's diary as evidence in a criminal trial stands in direct contrast to the principles enshrined in the First Amendment. And the content of one's personal diary has little bearing on their outward actions. Diaries, after all, are not a mission statement; they are a repository for one's private thoughts not meant to be shared with the public.

Lyra Foster, an attorney representing three defendants, told The Appeal, "A young person's meandering thoughts put into writing will never be evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and is a desperate media stunt."

Comments

[Chumby]

The Pluggo went down to Georgia, he was looking for an ass to grind.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

He was in a rut 'cause he was way too cut and ready to make a find.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland]

He came across a young man playing a fiddle and playing it hot.
He said "12 years old is way too old and now I'm moving on"

[Vernon Depner]

With puberty blockers they can stay cute longer.

[lillianspencer]

In Georgia RICO cases, prosecutors are using lyrics and diary entries as evidence to establish connections to criminal organizations. This practice raises questions about the interpretation of artistic expression within a legal context and its impact on personal privacy and freedom of speech.
Same issues with my Customized box packaging site

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

In separate criminal racketeering cases, prosecutors are using rap lyrics and the personal diary of a protester shot and killed by police as evidence.

I haven’t yet read the whole article, but I can see… or at least imagine where these things might be relevant. Like, would diary entries by the accused be automatically off limits under any and all circumstances? Ie, is there something magical about diary entries that make them inadmissible?

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

I haven’t yet read the whole article

Funny, Lancaster didn't finish writing it, either. Mentions 3 cases regarding RICO in GA but only goes on to summarizes 2 of them.

[Zeb]

I think RICO laws are generally not good and easily abused. The Trump case seems like the most absurd application of the three.

[Michael Ejercito]

Would there be a plausible RICO case against Robert Mueller, Adam Schiff, and the Cunt®™ legally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton)?

[Zeb]

Well, the government is a corrupt organization, and a racket, so it fits.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

Yeah, not a fan of either RICO in general and I think the Trump case is the most absurd use of it I've seen to date.

[Zeb]

Try reading some of the indictment. It's really something. Talking to your lawyers, making legal arguments, petitioning a legislature for redress of grievances and asking a secretary of state to act within the law to find more votes are all predicates to the RICO charges.

[ElvisIsReal]

This person arranged for another person to get picked up at the airport!

CHARGE ALL THE THINGS!

[Pear Satirical]

Telling people to watch OAN was used as evidence.

[Rossami]

What about a diary entry makes it reliable as evidence? How is a reader supposed to distinguish between fact and fiction? Diaries often do contain scraps of fiction, random thoughts, etc. They are not strictly autobiographical drafts. There is no objective basis on which to assess the credibility of writing.

Unless you're going to allege that the writing is testimony of the author but the author is also the defendant and that puts you into 5th amendment problems.

[mad.casual]

They are not strictly autobiographical drafts. There is no objective basis on which to assess the credibility of writing.

Bullshit. This is like saying that because I typed "2 + 2 = 4", no one can verify that 2 + 2 = 4.

Unless you’re going to allege that the writing is testimony of the author but the author is also the defendant and that puts you into 5th amendment problems.

Again, I haven't read the specifics of the case in question but the idea that I wind up dead with a receipt for a contract killing in my hand and a journal entry for who hired me and where I deposited the payment is inadmissible in the case against the person who put out the hit is retarded. Again, no reading, they aren't charging the dead guy with a crime, so the 5th doesn't apply.

Admittedly, even emphatically, RICO is rather bullshit and the normal order of operations is working backwards from an actual apparent crime, with the journal/piece of evidence filling in the gaps.

[mad.casual]

Haven't read it either and probably am not going to based on the incoherence of the premise. I'm not a fan of RICO cases, the laws are bad in-and-of-themselves.

None of which has anything to do with the relatively unquestionable, or at least not-at-all-novel, admissibility of words written by a dead man. We allow all manner of ledgers, affidavits, written testimony, recorded scientific results, code scribbles, and cocktail napkins to be allowed as evidence; rather central to the 1A is that the jury hears the words written and decides for themselves whether it constitutes a credible threat or something benign. Just because you can sing your manifesto and put "Dear Diary," at the top of your people to kill list doesn't make it protected speech.

[Medulla Oblongata]

It is protected speech, in that you're free to say it. If it was complete fiction there's no argument at all.

But if it constitutes an admission of guilt, I don't care if it's in iambic pentameter, it should be up to a jury to decide the veracity and applicability as a public confession.

When does a diary or journal become a manifesto? Seems like when the author is suspected to have committed the crime described in the diary.

[MrMxyzptlk]

I think, not sure mind you, but isnt there some founding document that mentions being secure in one's private papers?

[MrMxyzptlk]

I'm sure there's something in the constitution or bill of rights that talks about being secure in one's person and papers. But that's inconvenient for tossing political rivals in prison so they ignore it..

[Wizard4169]

Using documents that were never meant to be made public treads dangerously close to self-incrimination in my book. Also, is there any evidence that things someone wrote down actually happened? And if there is other evidence, then why bother with the diary?

[markm23]

"In separate criminal racketeering cases, prosecutors are using rap lyrics and the personal diary of a protester shot and killed by police as evidence.
...
would diary entries by the accused be automatically off limits?"

Unless they've found some way to try the dead, these aren't diary entries by the accused. IMHO, diary entries by an alleged associate of the accused are somewhere between hearsay and guilt by association.

[Longtobefree]

The signatories called the practice "un-American and simply wrong," constituting "an obvious disregard for free speech and creative expression protected by the First Amendment."

Texts made on January 6th, however - - - - - - - - -

[JesseAz]

I mean they literally went after lawyers shielded by privilege to go after Trump.

[Social Justice is neither]

But that is OK to Joe and the rest of the psychotic leftists because they need that target destroyed.

[mad.casual]

It's the inverse of Blackstone's Ratio: Better to free 100 self-professed murderers and violent criminals burgeoning rappers than to fail to imprison 10 political figures and their lawyers we presume to be guilty of... uh... [flips through notes] overestimating their property's worth... no, no... [flips more pages] getting someone killed by capital police by telling them to respect police.

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

Well, they were free to say it. Are they being prosecuted for the things they said or are these things they said being used as evidence in the prosecution of things they actually did? Sounds like the latter. If they had not committed numerous violent crimes over the previous decade, including murder, assault, and armed robbery, they wouldn't be getting prosecuted.

[MrMxyzptlk]

A variant of the "if you ain't doing nuttin wrong why you usin them constitpational rights arguments." As a defense for police and prosecution over reach.

You realize your "rights" exist because the founders had witnessed unjust use of courts and officers to go after political enemies instead of keeping the peace.

The assumption in every case should be that the police and prosecutor are trying to railroad an innocent person. Otherwise why bother with the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Why bother with any rights of the accused if we are to assume cops can do no wrong and are always honest and good.

[Wizard4169]

Yeah, not sure how raps constitute evidence. I've heard a few too many stories about hardcore gangstas who turned out to have grown up in the suburbs where they once shoplifted a pack of gum. Do they have any evidence the crimes in there lyrics actually happened? And if they do, why do they need to use the songs?

[MWAocdoc]

There's a big difference between fantasizing in a song about committing a crime and admitting guilt in a sworn statement! Obviously, claiming you committed a crime in public might justify an investigation into that crime as probable cause, say, for a search warrant. Using that claim as evidence in a criminal trial goes way outside the bounds of proper court procedure.

[MasterThief]

Having not read the argument, I'd say that if evidence ties you or associates to a crime and you have a song and diary entry that claim you committed the crime then it's pretty damn likely you did it

[Ben of Houston]

I have to agree. In both these situations, while I can see situations where it's relevant at least, I would have to challenge the lyrics especially on applicability. The commercial nature puts everything in question even if they claim it's a true story. The crime genre sells.

On the other hand, with the dead man, there's a problem; they are dead and this is as close as we can get to their actual thoughts. However, I would be highly skeptical of whether this is applicable or even unreasonably prejudicial. Private thoughts shared with no one are the most extreme and unfiltered expression. Who hasn't drafted out a screaming rant at someone and then spoken politely to their face?

Certainly, I cannot see this diary being held above actual physical evidence, and I can see an argument that it's inclusion at all is irrelevant, especially as the police had no way of knowing the state of the rioter's mind.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/TheMessenger/status/1729514012587491371?t=yhf0EEfC8HkFQXvWYdS6Tg&s=19

BREAKING: Koch network endorses Nikki Haley, says it’s time to move on from Trump

[Link]

[Chumby]

I just saw Haley’s comment, she waved.

[Vernon Depner]

"the First Amendment plainly includes the freedom to write about violent, gruesome, and offensive things without facing legal persecution for having done so."

Uh...the "legal persecution" is for participating in an organization that was actually DOING those things.

[Rossami]

If that is strictly true, then there is no legitimate purpose to introducing diaries and rap song lyrics as "evidence". Prosecute for the participation in actual crimes and be done with it.

[Vernon Depner]

That's not how RICO works. It's intended to prosecute leaders and participants in criminal organizations, who often do not participate in the actual crimes, even though they direct or support those who do. The classic example is the Mafia don who authorizes a "hit" with a nod or a look but doesn't dirty his hands doing the deed. By making participation in the crime organization a crime in itself, such criminals can be prosecuted, even though, by their design, there will not be any evidence of their having their "hands on" in the commission of the criminal acts. The writings and "rapping" of the accused could certainly be relevant to proving their participation in the organization.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

And I'm guessing the constitutional authority can be found in the commerce clause.

[Vernon Depner]

I don't see a constitutional problem with prohibiting participation in a criminal organization.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Until an organization you belong to is defined as a criminal organization. Then I expect you will complain.

[Vernon Depner]

"Defined as"? An organization is organized to commit crimes or it's not.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Sure. We all know the government would never abuse its power to get political enemies defined as traitorous terrorists and use every legal angle to try and take them down....

Wait. Isnt this exactly what they are trying on Trump?

[Vernon Depner]

There is no criminal law that is foolproofed against prosecutorial misconduct.

[mad.casual]

The real problem with indicting ham sandwiches is that the personal recipes containing arsenic might get used as evidence against the wrong people indicted for poisoning deaths. Then Western Democracy as we know it would crumble.

FFS.

[mad.casual]

And I’m guessing the constitutional authority can be found in the commerce clause.

I would point out that my copy of the 1A literally starts off by saying “Congress shall make no law”, not “Varying State and Federal Judiciaries shall not find”, but the 1A would be the hearsay testimony of a bunch of dead men and, therefor, inadmissible.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Or the emergency clause. They love that one.

[Wizard4169]

Once again, I'm not sure how song lyrics or diary entries are relevant. Neither is exactly guaranteed to be factual. If you have evidence they are factual, you really don't need them.

[A Thinking Mind]

Last year, Willis defended the practice of using lyrics as evidence, saying “If you decide to admit your crimes over a beat, I’m going to use it.” She further pledged that “you do not get to commit crimes in my county and then decide to brag on it, which you do as a form of intimidation, and not be held responsible.”

There’s a lot of exceptions for hearsay, but this is blatant hearsay. I have no idea how the judge thinks the burden for hearsay is overcome when she’s using them exclusively for the purpose of proving the truthfulness of the statement.

Typically, among the reasons you can’t use hearsay is that a third person can’t impute meaning onto someone else’s words. Someone could have been telling a story, or being sarcastic or mocking, and the words themselves make poor evidence. You can get the words in if you use them to explain what the witness did in response-ie, “I heard someone say he had a knife, so I went to confront him,” or “She told me the apartment was locked, so I went to find the landlord.”

There’s lots of other hearsay exceptions, but the most basic rule is whether it’s being offered for the truth of the matter. This definitely is, with nobody other than the speaker having proper context.

[Think It Through]

Admission of a party-opponent.

[Vernon Depner]

How can someone's own words be "hearsay" against them?

[mad.casual]

Even then, hearsay is 5A or 6A (Confrontation Clause), not 1A (presuming the underlying alleged activity is actually a crime).

The reach is so retarded it makes Jacob "TDS" Sullum look cogent.

[MrMxyzptlk]

My son adds, "in minecraft" to any sentence when we talk about things that may not be strictly legal.

[Social Justice is neither]

So if I'm running a criminal enterprise and I'm keeping track of the books I just need to start every page "Dear diary" and everything written below that is sacrosanct and cannot be used against me? How does Joe remember to breathe if he's this dumb?

[MrMxyzptlk]

I doubt the IRS would give a shit.

[mad.casual]

Old Mafia: Never write anything down.
New Mafia: Be a part of a protected political class, write it down, sell it to a record company.

[damikesc]

So, if he rapped "I never, ever break the law. Ever." they'd never be able to try him?

You know, since his lyrics prove a case and all.

[Think It Through]

Goes to weight, not admissibility.

[Ben of Houston]

I think it goes so far as to the point of relevance and whether it's prejudicial. If you have enough support to show the lyrics are true, you have no need of the lyrics in the first place.

[mulched]

Breaking: Georgia indicts Eric Clapton for shooting the sheriff.

[defaultdotxbe]

I'd say it's too late to charge Johnny Cash for shooting that man in Reno, but then again he was already stuck in Folsom prison for that one.

[markm23]

Isn't it amazing that he was imprisoned in CA for a shooting in NV?

[JesseAz]

Not for dressing his baby up as a slinky?

[Vernon Depner]

If a particular sheriff had in fact been shot, with Clapton having the means, motive, and opportunity, wouldn't the song be relevant?

[mad.casual]

Multiple murders, assaults, and armed robberies were committed, but the 2A prevents Clapton or anyone else’s guns, knives, or any other arms from being examined and submitted as evidence and the 1A prevents anything they’ve written or said from being submitted because they’re up-and-coming rappers.

Again, as wrong as the Smithsonian’s “Aspects & Assumptions of Whiteness & White Culture In The US” display was… it wasn’t entirely wrong.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Bob Marley was outside their jurisdiction. But he and Eric obviously conspired to profit from the crime from royalties. Marley could be tried in absentia. Post mortem.

[mad.casual]

All your alleged Constitutional precepts are belong to us the hearsay testimony of a bunch of dead men.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

And then there's Jimi who offered up that hearsay confession from Joe.

[mulched]

Jimi pleads to misdemeanor possession and walks on the accessory charge.

[mad.casual]

If Don Everly’s daughter goes missing in the late 80s/early 90s, would Axl Rose’s back yard be off limits because of ‘Used To Love Her’ or deserved fair game because of ‘One In A Million’?

I’m pretty sure I know the right answer and the currently (or even then) popular answer, what’s *your* (libertarian/free speech) answer?

[mad.casual]

Remember the Chicago kids who livestreamed their assault of a retarded kid for (their supposition of) supporting Trump?

Apparently, Joe's libertarian take was that the real crime was that nobody twerked to a beat.

[Wizard4169]

Dumb, even for you. Do I really have to explain that talking about something is not remotely the same thing as recording yourself actually doing it?

[TJJ2000]

"President Donald Trump over attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election"

Or maybe he was just calling-out the possibility of election fraud. It's amazing how many things Trump did that he didn't actually do. Watch out for this kind of brain-washing.

[Wizard4169]

I agree that the RICO charges against Trump are a hell of a stretch. But saying he was merely speculating about the possibility of fraud is ludicrous. He repeatedly stated that fraud had happened, despite the utter lack of evidence. Begging officials to "find" votes and pressuring Pence to refuse to certify the election with absolutely no legal basis sound a whole hell of a lot like trying to overturn the election.

[TJJ2000]

Never-mind those literally thousands of missed votes in Georgia that were found not counted and the multiple illegal executive order changes.

"sounds a whole hell of a lot like" based on blatantly false statements. How BS propaganda is made to work.

[NOYB2]

Try as she may, Fani Willis will never reach the brilliance and fame of Andrei Yanuaryevich Vyshinsky.

[Get To Da Chippah]

So according to this article, written or oral confessions to crimes, even when offered willingly, are inadmissible as evidence because of the First Amendment?

[Wizard4169]

It's one helluva stretch to call these confessions.

[Get To Da Chippah]

Good thing that's not what I did. What I did point out was that, according to the arguments presented in this article, even written and oral confessions would be inadmissible due to the protections of the First Amendment.

[Vernon Depner]

Is there sex involved?