Recommendations of the Editorial team
Some of the biggest names in rap have rallied behind a black man whose rap lyrics were used at his sentencing in Texas. He’s on death row.
In 2009, a nearly all-white jury convicted James Garfield Broadnax of killing two men during a robbery the previous year near Garland, Texas. The prosecution had excluded all potential jurors who were black from the trial. After the sentencing, prosecutors introduced Broadnax’s lyrics when deciding whether he should be sentenced to death. According to the New York Times, during deliberations the jury asked twice to see 40 pages of handwritten lyrics by Broadnax. Broadnax’s lawyers last month asked the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to stop his execution – scheduled for next month – and reconsider his case.
An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Killer Mike, TI, Young Thug, Fat Joe, NORE and other artists, musicologists and arts organizations in support of Broadnax. Travis Scott’s legal team filed its own amicus brief with the Supreme Court on the same day. Both argue that the use of rap lyrics in the trial was unconstitutional.
Scott’s letter to the Supreme Court
“Prosecutors argued that Mr. Broadnax would be dangerous in the future simply because he practiced ‘gangster rap,'” Scott’s letter said. “Such an argument functions functionally as a categorical and clearly unconstitutional content-based punishment of rap music as a form of expression.”
Furthermore, the letter argues: “At some level of abstraction, the reality is even more problematic: rapMusic taking it out of context exposes the entire genre to prosecution.”
Scott’s letter also argues that rap music “predominantly created by and historically associated with minority artists” is protected by the First Amendment, that the criminalization of rap music is a violation of those rights, and that SCOTUS should clarify “the constitutional limits” on the use of “protected artistic expression as evidence of criminal inclination.”
Lawyer: Constitutional rights at stake
In a statement to ROLLING STONE, Ellyde R. Thompson, an attorney representing Scott, said the case “impacts fundamental constitutional rights.” Thompson added: “A death sentence should never be based, even in part, on constitutionally protected artistic expression.”
The letter submitted by Killer Mike and others argues that rap lyrics are fiction, not autobiography. “Exaggerated stories of violence, sex and criminal behavior sell to large segments of the American population – and every aspiring gangsta rapper must learn and practice these conventions of the form,” it says.
The letter further argues that Broadnax’s lyrics were irrelevant to his case because they were not used in the guilt or innocence determination phase. Their use served to “foment racial prejudice and anti-rap bias,” and the way they were used was intended to make him appear dangerous. “This case illustrates the racial prejudice that poisons a criminal case when the state uses a defendant’s rap lyrics to capitalize on anti-rap bias, the misinterpretation of rap lyrics, and the anti-Black bias induced by rap music,” the letter said.
“A dagger through the heart”
Chad Baruch, an attorney representing Killer Mike and Professor Erik Nielson – who is also named in the letter and teaches at the University of Richmond – said: “This case presents the Supreme Court with the ideal opportunity to once and for all drive a much-needed dagger through the heart of the criminalization of rap as an art form.”
In another statement, Lucius T. Outlaw III, an attorney involved in the letter, said the state of Texas had “misused Mr. Broadnax’s rap artistry to obtain a death sentence – by appealing to racist stereotypes and fear of the young black ‘superpredator.’
Both briefs ask SCOTUS to “grant the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari” – that is, to review a lower court’s decision.
Texas rejects criticism
Lawyers for the state of Texas argued that Broadnax’s lawyers waited too long to object to the use of his lyrics. They claimed to have only used the lyrics in a small part of their argument.
“No matter how beautiful it sounds or how horrible it sounds, it’s still just art,” Killer Mike told the Times. “It’s an interpretation of the human mind. It’s not an admission of guilt.”
