Guest post by Professors Jack Lerner and Charis Kubrin
Anildo Lopes Correia, age 18, was prosecuted in Massachusetts for first degree murder for a stabbing that took place during a brawl. Correia claimed self-defense. During cross-examination at trial, without any warning to the defense or judge, the prosecutor moved to introduce lyrics from Correia’s rap songs that he had posted on YouTube—even though those songs were not mentioned during the brawl, nor did they have anything to do with the events that led to the stabbing. Correia’s attorney objected not only to the lack of notice, but also because any probative value of the lyrics was likely outweighed by their prejudicial impact.
The trial judge overruled counsel’s repeated objections and denied a motion for a mistrial, finding the lyrics “probative on the question of whether it’s reasonable for someone like this defendant to [find the victim] so threatening to him [that] he had to repeatedly stab him in self-defense.” And the court admitted a slew of irrelevant rap evidence, including cover art for one of the YouTube videos which depicted a cartoon of someone wearing a t-shirt that had a drawing of an AK-47 on it. (Yes…a cartoon.) The case of Commonwealth v. Correia is now before the Supreme Judicial Court—the highest court in Massachusetts.
In seeking to bring attention to the problem of “Rap on Trial” and co-authoring the Rap on Trial Legal Guide, we have witnessed how prosecutors use rap lyrics to try to introduce character evidence by another name. This case is among the most egregious, which is why we joined with Citizens for Juvenile Justice, the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the New England Innocence Project to file an amicus brief that will help the Supreme Judicial Court understand why it is so harmful to truth, justice, and a defendant’s right to a fair trial when the prosecution introduces rap lyrics in this way.
In the brief, we discuss experimental research demonstrating that admission of rap lyrics can substantially prejudice defendants at criminal trials, largely because of stereotypes and biases associated with the genre and those who make rap music. Three decades’ worth of public opinion polls and research reveals that, compared to violent lyrics from other music genres, juries are likely to treat violent rap lyrics as more literal, offensive, threatening, and dangerous.
We also sought with this brief to help the court understand the unique conventions of rap that can be confusing to someone not familiar with it. Rap embodies a hyperbolic and competitive culture. Rappers typically perform under stage names and routinely overstate their criminal backgrounds and personal biographies—at times inventing them altogether—in order to fit the personas they market to the public. These public personas should not be viewed literally, but instead as a form of artistic expression.
Finally, we urged the court to give special attention to this issue because rap music, at its core, is a form of artistic expression, and using it to criminalize should raise profound First Amendment concerns for any court. Rap uses poetic language and tools such as rhyme, meter, and metaphor to express concerns about political and social life for Black Americans. As such, it is protected speech. Using Correia’s rap lyrics as arbitrary support for his homicide conviction creates a chilling effect and undermines the First Amendment right to free expression.
For all these reasons, Correia’s rap music should never have been admitted at his trial, and we were proud to join these important organizations in filing this brief. We give special thanks to Katy Naples-Mitchell, on behalf of the New England Innocence Project, and Erin Stewart and Leon Smith of Citizens for Juvenile Justice, who carried the laboring oar on the brief.
We have added the brief to our Rap on Trial Brief Bank, and you can download it directly here.