The ruling is not a blanket win for either side. It highlights a growing legal fight over when rap lyrics are art, evidence or unfairly prejudicial in court.
A judge ruled that some of Yella Beezy’s lyrics will be allowed as evidence in his murder trial in Dallas, while most of the Dallas rapper’s lyrics cannot be admitted at trial. This article explains the court’s decision on which lyrics can be used at trial, why the ruling matters now, and how it could shape the murder-for-hire case involving the 2020 killing of rapper MO3.
Yella Beezy, whose real name is Markies Conway, is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. KXT 91.7, citing the Dallas court ruling, reported that Conway’s trial is scheduled to begin Aug. 24.
The lyrics that survived review
The ruling allows prosecutors to use parts of Yella Beezy’s song On Ya Head and all of Keep It in the Streets, according to KXT 91.7. A Dallas News report also said a judge ruled that some of the rapper’s lyrics can be offered into evidence at the upcoming trial.
That is a narrower outcome than the headline phrase “lyrics allowed” can suggest. KXT reported that most of Conway’s rap lyrics cannot be used as evidence against him.
The court also allowed one song by MO3, 2 Nineteen, to be used as evidence, KXT reported. MO3, whose real name was Melvin Noble, was fatally shot on Interstate 35 in Dallas in 2020.
The ruling matters because lyrics can carry emotional force in front of a jury. A violent line can sound like a confession to one listener and like performance, bravado or genre convention to another.
The charge behind the dispute
Conway is accused of paying a man to kill MO3, according to KXT. The case has been described as a murder-for-hire trial tied to the rapper’s killing on a Dallas freeway.
The lyrics dispute unfolded before trial because both sides needed to know what jurors will be allowed to hear. If prosecutors can introduce lyrics, they may try to connect them to motive, rivalry, intent or knowledge. If the defense can keep them out, it can argue the state should rely on direct evidence rather than artistic expression.
Nothing in the ruling itself decides guilt. It decides what evidence may be presented, and under what limits, before jurors weigh the case.
That distinction is central in high-profile criminal cases involving artists. The public often hears the sensational part first: song lyrics in a murder trial. The courtroom question is narrower: do the lyrics have a specific connection to the alleged crime strong enough to justify the risk of prejudice?
Why rap lyrics are contested
The use of rap lyrics in criminal prosecutions has drawn years of criticism from First Amendment advocates, defense lawyers, scholars and musicians. Their argument is not that lyrics can never matter. It is that rap is often treated differently from other genres, especially when prosecutors frame fictional or exaggerated lines as real-world admissions.
Attorney Chad Baruch, who wrote a 2015 amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of rappers Killer Mike and T.I., told KERA that rap songs can be used as evidence only when there is a link between the lyrics and the crime.
Baruch gave KERA a blunt example: if someone writes a song about murdering his wife and then kills her 48 hours later, that lyric is likely coming into evidence. But he warned against a blanket rule that either always admits or always excludes rap lyrics.
He also pointed to the genre issue. Baruch told KERA that if Johnny Cash were accused of murder, no one would likely introduce the lyric about shooting a man in Reno “just to watch him die” from Folsom Prison Blues. His point was that treating rap differently can mean treating Black performers differently.
Texas courts have warned prosecutors
The Dallas ruling lands after a major Texas decision on the same issue. KXT reported that the state’s highest criminal court found in 2024 that when rap lyrics are introduced, their value as evidence must outweigh the bias they may create.
That case, Hart v. State, overturned a capital murder conviction involving a Greenville man because of rap songs used by prosecutors, according to KXT’s summary. The decision signaled that trial courts cannot simply assume lyrics are fair game because they sound violent or criminal.
In plain terms, judges must balance two questions. First, do the lyrics actually help prove something relevant in the case? Second, could they unfairly lead jurors to punish a defendant for artistic persona, language, race, genre or taste rather than for evidence tied to the alleged crime?
The Yella Beezy ruling appears to reflect that balancing act. Some lyrics were deemed usable. Most were not.
What investigators said
KXT reported that Dallas Police Department investigator Eric Barnes, described in court as a “rap music expert,” testified at a hearing last week. Barnes said lyrics and social media posts were relied on as evidence because many witnesses refused to talk.
That testimony shows one reason prosecutors may turn to music and online material in gang, rivalry or retaliation cases: witnesses may be unavailable, unwilling or afraid. Digital and artistic material can then become part of the state’s effort to build a narrative.
For defense attorneys, that same move can be dangerous. Lyrics are crafted for an audience. They may use threats, aliases, fictional scenarios and violent imagery as part of a commercial style. Without a tight factual link, the defense can argue, jurors may mistake performance for proof.
This is the tension the court ruling tries to manage. It does not remove lyrics from the trial entirely, but it also does not allow prosecutors to play every song they want.
What happens when trial starts
Conway’s trial is scheduled to begin Aug. 24, according to KXT. Once it starts, the practical impact of the lyrics ruling will depend on how prosecutors present the songs and how the defense responds.
Jurors may hear selected lyrics alongside other evidence, including testimony, records, social media posts or investigative findings. The defense may try to separate the songs from the alleged crime and remind jurors that rap lyrics are not automatically autobiographical.
Several questions remain unresolved from the public record available so far: how prominently prosecutors will feature the admitted songs, what limiting instructions the judge may give jurors, and whether the defense will seek to revisit any part of the ruling during trial.
The larger takeaway is clear. The Dallas court did not treat Yella Beezy’s catalog as a confession. It also did not treat rap lyrics as untouchable art. It drew a line through the evidence, and that line may become one of the most closely watched parts of the trial.
Leave a Reply