The Overgeneralization of the ‘Rap on Trial’ label in the United States of America and the United Kingdom

Abstract

The term “Rap on Trial”, coined by Erik Nielson and Andrea L. Dennis, is frequently used to describe the use of rap music as evidence in criminal proceedings in both the United States and the United Kingdom. This paper argues that this is an overgeneralization; Both legal systems ask fundamentally different questions and focus on different aspects of the same material. By analyzing the leading case in each jurisdiction, State v. Skinner in the United States and R v Lewis in the United Kingdom, this paper found the divergence in said systems. The US framework, using Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) analyses the relevance and truthfulness of lyrical content, while the UK framework based on sections 98-101 of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 asks whether presence in a work can prove group association. This divergence reflects the underlying difference in the nation’s systems, the focus on individual expression in the US and the joint enterprise logic in the UK. However, this paper recognises that this distinction is not entirely clear cut, as both systems use the other’s logic as shown in State of Georgia v Williams and R v Oni. This overlap suggests that the divergent frameworks represent different starting points rather than entirely separate systems.