Brooklyn prosecutors shouldn’t have used a rap song as evidence in a murder trial, a New York state appeals court says, ruling that the lyrics have “inherent ambiguity” and the defendant was “deprived of a fair trial.”

In a decision Tuesday (Sept. 23), New York’s Appellate Division ordered a new trial for Idrissa Reaves, who was convicted of aiding in the 2016 murder of Nashon Henry. The grounds? That prosecutors had improperly cited his jailhouse rap song to help secure a guilty verdict.

The reversal centered on testimony from a supposed “slang expert” who had explained Reaves’ lyrics to jurors. The appeals court said the man had not been qualified to do so — and that he had conveniently interpreted each part of the song to support the state’s charges.

“The defendant was deprived of a fair trial based upon the improper admission of the rap song through a witness who was unqualified to offer expert opinion testimony regarding the meaning of the lyrics,” Justice Barry E. Warhit wrote, before adding that the expert’s interpretations always “ultimately evolved into opinions fitting precisely into the People’s factual theory of the case.”

The ruling is the latest in a years-long debate over whether rap lyrics should be used as evidence in criminal trials. Critics argue the practice threatens free speech by treating creative expression as a literal confession; others say it can improperly sway juries by tapping into biases against young black men. California enacted a law in 2022 restricting the practice; New York came close to doing the same but has not yet done so.

Though the current case does not involve a major artist, huge names in hip-hop have faced criminal prosecutions involving their music. Young Thug faced a high-profile gang case in Atlanta that focused heavily on his songs; Lil Durk is currently facing a case in which prosecutors initially cited his lyrics.

Reaves was charged over a fatal 2016 shooting in Brooklyn, in which prosecutors say he served as the getaway driver. While awaiting trial at Rikers Island, he authored a rap song that he performed over recorded telephone calls, which featured lines like “Boy always f—d up but he wanna drill a n—-.”

At trial, prosecutors wanted to use the song’s lyrics to show that Reaves knew the shooting was going to take place, a key requirement of proving that he committed a crime by aiding the shooter. And a judge ruled that they could introduce them as evidence — but only if they secured an expert who could testify about what the lyrics meant.

When the government couldn’t locate such an expert, the judge told prosecutors they had “ten minutes” to “get somebody” to be one. So they quickly turned to an investigator at the Brooklyn district attorney’s office without specific expertise on rap lyrics. The investigator had some training in “gang lingo,” the appeals court said, even though “this case did not involve gangs.”

On the stand, the witness “admitted to guessing” about the meaning of lyrics, conceded that songs are “not always literal,” and acknowledged multiple interpretations that “reflected the lyrics’ inherent ambiguity,” the appeals court said. But in his final opinion, he “invariably inculpated the defendant” in ways that were “in perfect accord with the People’s theory of the case.”

The appeals court nodded to the ongoing legal debate over rap lyrics as evidence, saying that some courts have “cautioned” against it because it’s “difficult to distinguish between reality and fantasy.” However, the court added, many judges have still found it appropriate if a genuine expert can put the words in context.

In Reaves’ case, Justice Warhit said prosecutors had clearly not done so. And the supposed expert had gone even further than just speculating, the court said — including suggesting that the lyrics referenced crimes with which Reaves had not even been charged, like reading a lyric about “swipe” to mean using stolen credit cards.

“There was no charge in this case relating to the illegal use or possession of credit cards, and this testimony was entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether the defendant knew the shooter intended to kill the victim,” the appeals court wrote.

The ruling overturns the conviction and sends the case back to a lower court for a new trial. A spokesman at the Brooklyn DA’s office told Billboard they were “reviewing the decision.”