United States v. Edgar Jamal Gamory

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the “substance of the rap video was heavily prejudicial” because the lyrics “could 52 reasonably be understood as promoting a violent and unlawful lifestyle”
• explaining that the admission of a rap video containing explicit lyrics dealing with drugs, sex, profanity, degradation of women, firearms, and violence was error and “heavily prejudicial”
• explaining that the admission of a rap video containing explicit lyrics dealing with drugs, sex, profanity, degradation of women, firearms, and violence was error and “heavily prejudicial”
• finding that the defendant did not show prejudice under the third prong when the court was “able to conclude with fair assurance . . . that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error” (quotation omitted)
• finding a rap music video to be unfairly prejudicial because it contained content unnecessary and unrelated to the criminal case
• finding a rap music video to be unfairly prejudicial because it contained content unnecessary and unrelated to the criminal case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).