When 15-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez was found dead in the back of a car belonging to rising artist d4vd, fans were quick to link the dark yet romantic lyrics of his songs to the case. For instance, in his track “Romantic Homicide” and the line, “I killed you and I didn’t even regret it.” However, both investigators and the public face a more complicated question: when do song lyrics stop being art and start becoming evidence?

The discovery in the d4vd case reignited a long-standing debate in both the music industry and the courtroom: whether music and lyrics can be used as evidence in legal proceedings. For decades, prosecutors have attempted to connect lyrics—often written by Black artists—to real crimes. Many argue that this practice threatens freedom of expression and reinforces racial bias, while others believe that, in certain cases, an artist’s lyrics may reflect their actions.

Some listeners viewed the connection between d4vd’s music and the alleged crime as clear.
“I think it was a way of him admitting what he did without directly saying it,” said sophomore Jackson Scott. He compared the situation to the O.J. Simpson case, saying, “He just kind of told everybody what he did without directly telling them.” Others, however, argued that while the songs could not be used to convict him, they still shaped public perception. “At least in the public’s view, it’s like a way of admitting,” Scott said.

Many people view the use of song lyrics as evidence as a violation of free speech.
“Songs are not evidence of a crime,” said Upper School math teacher Raynard Oliver. “It’s just freedom of speech.”
Scott echoed this distinction: “You can write a song about it and it doesn’t make it true.” These views align with the First Amendment, which protects creative expression regardless of its tone or content, and is a primary reason lyrics cannot be used as evidence in trials.

This debate resurfaced in the d4vd case after the discovery of his unreleased song “Celeste.” Due to its title and lyrics mentioning “Oh, Celeste; the girl with my name tattooed on her chest,” and a tattoo found on Rivas Hernandez that matched one d4vd has, many observers questioned whether the connection was coincidence or correlation.

Among those who defend artistic freedom, there remains acknowledgment of a moral gray area. “For the court to use it, they’d have to definitely know that this is not self-expression—this is him admitting to it,” Scott said.

 Junior Bri Angel Parks said that while it should be treated as “a case-by-case situation,” it would still be risky to treat lyrics as confessions of guilt. “If we do that for one person, we’d have to start implementing that for everyone,” Parks said. “Once we start encroaching on that, it leans into, ‘Is this lawful? Is this constitutional?’”
Oliver added, “You really have to study the case, and you would have to find a jury that’s not biased and maybe try the case in another jurisdiction so you can get a fair assessment of the evidence that’s presented.”

This controversy also highlights how racial bias influences the interpretation of music. Several interviewees noted that rap and hip-hop artists—particularly Black artists—face greater scrutiny. “People have a more stereotypical, racist view of rap music compared to, like, jazz or country,” said Scott. “If we say rap music is hostile and a lot of Black people make rap music, so Black people are hostile, we’re making those unconscious correlations in our minds, and I think that’s very dangerous.”

 Oliver said, “There is a bias and a prejudice in how the industry and the community relate African American artists to crime. So any indication or likeness to illegal behavior in lyrics is more readily accepted as admission of guilt.” Scott added, “If d4vd was a white man making country music, not many people would be looking his way.”

The influence of public opinion is another major factor in the relationship between lyrics and legal cases. Social media reactions often move faster than court proceedings, shaping how both fans and juries perceive an artist’s intent. “Social renown affects the views of society and changes how the case might be treated,” Parks said. Still, some interviewees noted that artists hold a level of accountability for their words. “If you put anything out there and produce it, it’s a digital footprint,” Scott said. “You have to be okay with it being used against you.”

The d4vd controversy reflects the broader, ongoing debate about the relationship between creative expression and criminal evidence. It raises difficult questions about how to separate art from confession and how deeply public opinion—and prejudice—can shape justice.

                                                                                                                     Edited by Kavya Athota