Some of rap music’s biggest names have come out in support of a Black man, whose rap lyrics were cited during his sentencing in Texas. He is 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. Prosecutors had eliminated all prospective jurors who were Black. After Broadnax was convicted, prosecutors introduced his lyrics when a determination was being made on whether he should be put to death. During deliberations, the jury asked to review 40 pages of Broadnax’s handwritten lyrics two times, according to The New York Times. Broadnax’s lawyers last month asked the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to halt his execution, which is set for next month, and to review his case.
One “amici curae” brief was filed on behalf of Killer Mike, T.I., Young Thug, Fat Joe, N.O.R.E., and other artists, music scholars, and arts organizations in support of Broadnax. Travis Scott‘s legal team filed its own amicus brief with the Supreme Court the same day. Both argued that the use of rap lyrics in the trial was unconstitutional.
“The prosecutors argued Mr. Broadnax was likely to be dangerous in the future simply because he engaged in ‘gangster rap,'” read Scott’s brief. “Such an argument functionally operates as a categorical and straightforwardly unconstitutional content-based penalty on rap music as a form of expression.”
Moreover, the filing argues, “At a certain level of abstraction, the reality is even more problematic: taking rap music out of context subjects the entire genre to prosecution.”
Scott’s brief also argues that rap music, which is “primarily created by and historically associated with minority artists,” is protected by the First Amendment, that criminalizing rap music is an infringement on those rights, and that SCOTUS should “clarify the constitutional limits” of using “protected artistic expression as evidence of criminal propensity.”
In a statement to Rolling Stone, Ellyde R. Thompson, an attorney representing Scott, said that the case “implicates fundamental constitutional rights.” Thompson added, “A death sentence should never be based in any part on constitutionally protected artistic expression”
The brief filed by Killer Mike and others argued that rap lyrics are fiction, not autobiography. “Exaggerated tales of violence, sex, and criminal behavior sell to a broad swath of Americans — and any would-be gangsta rapper must learn and practice these conventions of the form,” it said.
The filing argued that Broadnax’s lyrics were irrelevant to his case since they weren’t used during the guilt or innocence phase of arguments. The use of the lyrics, it claimed, were used to “stoke racial and anti-rap bias,” and the way they were wielded was meant to make him seem dangerous. “This case exemplifies the racial prejudice that infects a criminal proceeding when the State uses a defendant’s rap lyrics to capitalize on anti-rap bias, the misinterpretation of rap lyrics, and anti-Black bias triggered by rap music,” the filing stated.
Chad Baruch, an attorney representing counsel for Killer Mike and Professor Erik Nielson, who is also named in the brief and teaches at the University of Richmond, said, “This case presents an ideal opportunity for the Supreme Court – once and for all – to plunge a much-needed dagger through the heart of the criminalization of rap as an art form.”
In another statement, Lucius T. Outlaw III, who also serves as counsel on the brief, said that the state of Texas “misused Mr. Broadnax’s rap artistic expression to secure a death sentence by appealing to racial stereotypes and fears of the young black ‘super predator.'”
Both briefs would like SCOTUS to “grant the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari,” which means review a lower court’s decision.
Lawyers for Texas argued that Broadnax’s attorneys had waited too long to raise objections over his lyrics. They claimed to have used his lyrics in only a small portion of their arguments.
“No matter how beautiful it sounds, or how horrific it may sound, it’s still just art,” Killer Mike told the Times. “It’s an interpretation of the human spirit. It is not an admission of guilt.”
