Nathan Howard

The submission of rap lyrics as inculpatory evidence (Rap on Trial) is an active prosecution tactic deployed in United States criminal trials. In this paper, I argue that interpretive ambiguity in rap lyrics is exploited in Rap on Trial cases, constituting a novel form of discursive injustice: extractive discursive injustice. Rap, a historically Black American artform, has core oral‐traditional elements such as its usage of Signifyin(g) that render it interpretably ambiguous. Utilizing the concept of hermeneutical impasses, I explain how a pernicious interpretation of rap lyrics nonetheless receives evidentiary uptake, revealing a crucial junction where injustice seeps into the courtroom. I argue that two speech act‐theoretic sites of injustice are present in Rap on Trial cases, detailing how one strain—discursive injustice—occurs. In doing so, I theorize novel forms of constitutive refusal and discursive injustice that occur when an utterance is extracted from one conversational context and deposited into another. I argue these are distinct from traditional forms in the method of arisal, though congruent with their function and display. I conclude by addressing an objection questioning the denial of truth‐telling value within rap lyrics and considering how a valid evidential use of rap lyrics might occur.