Did Bob Marley shoot the sheriff? Did Johnny Cash really shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die? Of course not.
No reasonable person believes those song lyrics are literal confessions. Yet prosecutors have used song lyrics as criminal evidence in more than 800 cases since 1980, often with devastating consequences for defendants. When courts treat song lyrics and other creative expression as evidence, it threatens our First Amendment rights.
On May 12, Gov. Wes Moore signed Senate Bill 475, the bipartisan Protecting Artists’ Creative Expression (PACE) Act, which sets clear standards prosecutors must satisfy before a defendant’s music, poetry, or other art can be admitted against them in a criminal or juvenile proceeding.
The PACE Act requires prosecutors to clear a four-part test before a defendant’s creative expression can be admitted against them. A judge must find that the defendant intended the expression to be taken literally rather than as fiction or hyperbole; that it refers to the specific facts of the alleged offense and has a close temporal and factual connection to it; that it is relevant to a disputed issue of fact; and that its probative value outweighs its potential to prejudice the jury.
Other states and Congress should follow Maryland’s lead in protecting freedom of expression.
Why Maryland’s PACE Act matters
When rap lyrics have been used as evidence, they have had a particularly pernicious effect on juries’ perceptions of defendants. In one study, people who were shown a young man’s violent rap lyrics rated his character more negatively than a separate group of people who were told only that the same man was on trial for murder. Across nearly every measure of character the researchers tested, writing the lyrics did at least as much damage to how the man was perceived as a murder charge did.
Rap lyrics function as character evidence whenever they are offered in order to persuade a jury that a defendant is a generally violent person. Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 404 ordinarily bars that use. Prosecutors cannot introduce evidence of a defendant’s general character simply to argue that they acted in character when the alleged crime occurred. The rule does, however, let evidence in for other purposes, such as showing motive or intent. Prosecutors can exploit that opening, telling courts that lyrics are offered not to prove bad character but for some permissible reason, such as to establish the defendant’s state of mind or to give the jury context.
That workaround can produce wrongful convictions. In one Tennessee case, an appellate court overturned a murder conviction after finding that rap lyrics admitted at trial were highly prejudicial. The trial court let the lyrics in as evidence of the defendant’s state of mind, a rationale framed as distinct from character. However, the appellate court concluded that the inflammatory lyrics created a significant risk that the jury had convicted on improper grounds.
In a separate federal case, United States v. Jordan, defendant Karl Jordan was charged with murder and narcotics trafficking. Here, the prosecution tried to introduce generic descriptions in the defendant’s music about shootings and possible drug references as evidence for murder. Denying a motion to admit rap music lyrics in 2024, U.S. District Judge LeShann DeArcy Hall of the Eastern District of New York held there was not a “sufficient nexus between the proffered evidence and the conduct alleged” in the case. In her ruling, the judge noted that this type of evidence is generally prejudicial and often far from an accurate portrayal of any conduct of the lyricist. The court noted that “some of the themes of violence and criminality have become so prevalent within the genre that they have little, if any, probative value at trial.”
Since 2023, convictions have been vacated in Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, and New York. Legislation like Maryland’s PACE Act would resolve the conflict upfront by making lyrics inadmissible as evidence unless clear and reasonable standards are met.
Maryland’s law sets a single, consistent standard for admitting artistic expression as evidence, replacing the patchwork interpretations of current evidence rules that have produced inconsistent outcomes across courts. That clarity prevents the chilling effect on artistic expression that comes from artists fearing their work could be turned into criminal evidence.
Do we need a national standard?
Maryland is not alone, but its new law is the strongest of its kind.
California became the first state to restrict the use of creative expression as evidence when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2799 in 2022, and Louisiana followed with its own law, House Bill 475, in 2023. However, the California and Louisiana laws layered new instructions onto existing evidence rules rather than setting a clear, freestanding standard, which makes them awkward models for other states to adapt. Maryland’s PACE Act is a model that can be copied by other states and federally.
While progress at the level of individual states is positive, a federal standard could help even more. The Restoring Artistic Protections Act, backed by the nonprofit Free Our Art and recently reintroduced in Congress, would limit the admission of lyrics and other artistic expression in federal criminal and civil cases. Like the PACE Act, it would bar lyrics from being used against defendants unless there is a clear relationship to the facts of the case, the expression describes the alleged conduct with precision, and there is evidence that the artist intended the words to convey fact. The federal bill would go further than Maryland’s PACE Act by also requiring jury instructions to put any admitted lyrics in context.
Support for these reforms is bipartisan. In January 2026, the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council added a Freedom of Expression Protection Act with similar language to its portfolio of model state bills. Versions of the federal bill have also been introduced in Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, and New York. The Missouri bill has passed in the state House, and the New York bill has passed in the state Senate.
By requiring courts to test creative expression against clear standards before it reaches a jury, Maryland has shown other states and Congress a workable way to protect both free speech and due process.