United States v. Wiley, 610 F.Supp.3d 440

Defendant Tajh Wiley is charged in a drug-distribution conspiracy; the Government seeks to admit excerpts, transcripts, and images from four YouTube rap videos (published May–Dec 2020) into evidence.
The videos show Wiley with cash and luxury vehicles and contain lyrics describing drug distribution, gambling losses, claimed wealth, and other autobiographical assertions.
The Government argues the lyrics and images contain admissions and offense-specific details probative of Wiley’s membership in the charged conspiracy, knowledge of the drug trade, and relationship with co-conspirator Kenton Harry.
Wiley opposes admission on First Amendment grounds (protecting artistic expression), and under Rules 403 (undue prejudice) and 404 (impermissible character evidence).
The Court held the First Amendment does not bar introduction of such speech when used for permissible evidentiary purposes, applied Rule 403 to admit only lyrics/images that specifically corroborate the Government’s proof, and found admissible material that also met Rule 404(b) standards; vague or youth-related prior-act statements were excluded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment protection of rap lyrics	Lyrics are admissible evidence of admissions, intent, and membership in conspiracy	Admission would chill free expression; lyrics are artistic and protected speech	First Amendment does not bar evidentiary use of speech when offered for permissible purposes; admission allowed where probative of crime or intent
Rule 403 — relevance vs. unfair prejudice	Videos/lyrics are relevant and probative of knowledge, intent, and associations	Rap imagery and profanity are unduly prejudicial and likely to inflame the jury	Admit only lyrics/images that communicate specific, offense-related details; exclude vague, autobiographical, or youth-related material whose prejudicial effect outweighs probative value
Rule 404(b) — prior bad acts character evidence	Material is offered to show knowledge, motive, and participation, not character conformity	Such content is prior bad-act evidence and should be excluded as character evidence	Material admissible under Rule 403 may be admitted under Rule 404(b) for non-character purposes (knowledge, intent, relationship)
Scope/specificity of admissible lyrics	Many lyrics corroborate the Government’s other evidence (e.g., mention of a press machine, vehicles tied to trafficking)	Not every lyric is autobiographical; many are hyperbolic or irrelevant	Court limited admission to specific, offense-related lines listed in an attached appendix; all other lyrics excluded

Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (First Amendment does not bar evidentiary use of speech)
Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (district courts’ authority to rule on motions in limine)
United States v. Fell, 531 F.3d 197 (distinguishing permissible evidentiary use of speech from impermissible character-based uses)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (evidence excluded when it creates undue tendency to decide on improper basis)
United States v. Beech–Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181 (broad Rule 403 discretion)
United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211 (probative value versus inflammatory nature assessed under Rule 403)
United States v. Livoti, 196 F.3d 322 (admitting graphic or profane evidence when probative)
United States v. Foster, 939 F.2d 445 (lyrics may illustrate a speaker’s knowledge of criminal activity rather than prove character)
United States v. Gamory, 635 F.3d 480 (rap videos non-testimonial for Confrontation Clause and limits on adoption of views)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause testimonial standard)