Lyrical Convictions: The Argument Against Using Rap Lyrics in Court

Emma Paff

Rap/Hip-Hop Director 

“Taking rap music out of context subjects the entire genre to persecution.” This quote from Travis Scott’s amicus curiae brief has taken the media by storm in the past week. On March 9, Travis Scott filed an amicus, or friend of the court, brief to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas in support of the petitioner, James Garfield Broadnax. According to an article by The Texas Tribune, Broadnax was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in 2009 for the robbery and fatal shooting of two music producers in Garland, Texas. With his execution date set for the end of this April, Broadnax filed a new appeal, to strike his death sentence, containing a signed confession from his co-defendant, Demarius Cummings, who claimed that it was he, not Broadnax, who committed the murders. 

During Broadnax’s trial, the state produced more than 40 pages of handwritten lyrics from his notebooks to an almost all-white jury. The lyrics, which were referred to by the defense as “gangster rap,” were used to portray Broadnax as a violent individual with a “gang mentality,” which, in turn, was a reason behind pushing the death sentence. 

Broadnax is not the first individual to have their lyrics put on trial. The use of rap lyrics in court has been a longstanding issue, as outlined in an article by BET. Rappers like Mac Dre, Boosie Badazz, Drakeo the Ruler, 6ix9ine, and Young Thug all had their tracks studied, analyzed, and dissected in court. The most recent example of this was the defamation lawsuit against rapper Afroman filed by seven sheriffs’ deputies in Ohio over a music video for his song “Lemon Pound Cake.” The video contains home surveillance footage of law enforcement raiding Afroman’s home under a warrant for suspected drug trafficking and kidnapping charges. The trial, which is viral on social media for its entertaining yet groundbreaking defense, was won by Afroman on March 18. 

In his amicus curiae brief, Travis Scott and his team outline the history of the criminalization of rap. They argued that the use of rap lyrics in court is a violation of the First Amendment and has set a dangerous precedent for artistic expression. To aid in its argument, the brief pulls from sociological research about the public’s perception of rap music and prior court cases that have either recognized the problems of admitting lyrics in court or openly exposed their defendants to prejudice. After reviewing the extensively researched brief, I have pulled out a few of the key points used to solidify the argument against the admissibility of rap lyrics in court. 

In order to understand the prejudice that comes with exposing art, we need to acknowledge the history of oppression behind the artists.

In part I, section A, THE ORIGINS AND CRIMINALIZATION OF HIP-HOP AND RAP MUSIC: Rap Unquestionably Is Artistic And Political Expression Of Core First Amendment Importance, the brief covers the origins of rap and how it formed as a means for African Americans to escape oppression during the 1970’s. Rap emerged in the Bronx around the beginning of the War on Drugs and brought light and celebration to their community during times of struggles through poverty, police brutality, and gang violence.

The brief uses Run-DMC’s 1984 song “Hard Times” as an example of rap serving as an outlet for documenting the difficulties of urban life at the time. It then narrows into the subgenre “gangster rap,” which was used to describe the lyrics in Broadnax’s case. It states that as “gangster rap” grew in popularity, it moved from black urban communities to white suburban ones, too. This audience fed off the assumably “aggressive” and “abrasive” style, causing record labels to pressure artists for more music like this. Providing this background information exposes how the content of rap did not solely rely on the artists, meaning it is not fair to assume complete truth in the content, and it is a form of political expression, a right protected by the First Amendment.

Rap is a form of artistic expression and should not be taken literally. 

In 2018, the article, Rap on Trial: The Case for Nonliteral Interpretation of Rap Lyrics, by Dre’Kevius O. Huff explains the disparities behind using rap lyrics in court. One major point of recognition is that lyrics from other genres are not subjected to the same literal interpretation as rap. Huff states, “No one truly suspects Bob Marley shot the sheriff, or believes that Freddie Mercury killed a man.” However, especially in court, rap lyrics are taken as literal fact, and since rap is more likely to provoke negative racial stereotypes, a juror’s perception of a defendant can become unfairly influenced. This is particularly true in instances like Broadnax’s, where the prosecution uses an artist’s work to suggest that his creative output is a direct reflection of a dangerous character. In addition, rap often incorporates metaphors, boasts, and concepts used to convey a story or image to an audience. Like other genres, these devices are used as a form of exaggeration to aid in artistic expression. While at times it may be viewed as more controversial than other genres, it is a form of expression and should be treated as such. 

Rap lyrics are entitled to First Amendment protection 

While the First Amendment does not protect illegal acts of civil disobedience, it does protect symbolic expression in the form of art, and rap is art. The previously referenced “violent” or “dangerous” activities portrayed in rap music are also commonly depicted in books, paintings, and films with little to no scrutiny from an audience. However, rap has historically not been afforded the same consideration. An excerpt from the brief states that when reviewing the history of anti-blackness in American law, it is important to introduce proper safeguards when admitting rap lyrics into court. By persecuting individuals through their lyrics, the courts are failing to recognize rap in its true form and protect the artists’ First Amendment rights. 

To me, Travis Scott’s brief feels monumental, like a powerful speech or call to action. It outlines the history of the criminalization of rap and questions why a rapper’s art is not constitutionally protected, even though freedom of speech is a First Amendment right. It’s about protecting the art form as a whole from a system that is widely known to disproportionately affect people of color. While the potential impact of the brief is currently unknown, it is a strong reminder that the fight for fair treatment continues as racism and prejudice are still very prevalent in America’s criminal justice system today.