Notorious beef and implicit bias in the Court of Appeals

Notorious B.I.G., 2pac, Kendrick Lamar, Drake and Lil Wayne and their infamous feuds were discussed recently in the Court of Appeals. The issue before the court was whether the word “Beef” improperly invoked subconscious bias into the minds of jurors. The “Juicy” legal issue of implicit bias and its impact live on after death.  

When we think about a fair trial, we often imagine a courtroom where evidence is presented, and a jury of peers decides the outcome based solely on facts. However, the reality is that human beings, including jurors, can be influenced or “hypnotized” by unconscious attitudes or stereotypes that affect their understanding, actions, and decision.

In the legal profession, we call this: implicit bias.  

Subtle biases can sometimes influence how jurors perceive evidence, interpret witness credibility, and ultimately, how they decide on a verdict. For example, If the issue at trial is whether someone graduated from the University of Washington and they testified about being a Husky sports fan, jurors may subconsciously conclude the person didn’t graduate, based on the stereotype that die-hard Husky fans never actually attended the university. If the jury was to be impacted by this implicit bias, the outcome of the trial would be an “Unfair Xchange.” 

The danger of implicit bias is the danger of unfair outcomes, particularly for marginalized groups. It can skew the perception of evidence and testimonies, leading to decisions that are not based purely on the facts presented in court. Implicit bias can significantly undermine the principle of impartiality — a violation of the sixth amendment which mandates an impartial jury.  

So why is it important for three esteemed intellectuals on our second highest court to decide whether it is appropriate for an attorney to use the word "beef?" By acknowledging and addressing these biases, the legal system can work toward more equitable outcomes, ensuring that justice is truly blind “Until the End of Time” because that is what our Constitution requires.  

This column is for information purposes only and is not to be construed as legal advice. Please note that attorney client privilege does not attach without a written agreement signed by both parties.  

Mary Rathbone is an attorney based in Ephrata, Wash., who is passionate about educating the public regarding civics and the courts. Any questions regarding her column or suggestions for topics may be sent to: catwalktocourtroom@gmail.com.