Accused getaway driver, aka 'Block Da Foo Foo,' was prejudiced by rap video evidence, Texas court says
A trial judge should not have allowed prosecutors to introduce an accused getaway driver’s rap videos at trial in an effort to show that he was more sophisticated than he claimed to be, the top criminal court in Texas has ruled. (Image from Shutterstock)
A trial judge should not have allowed prosecutors to introduce an accused getaway driver’s rap videos at trial in an effort to show that he was more sophisticated than he claimed to be, the top criminal court in Texas has ruled.
In a May 8 opinion, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the capital murder conviction of Larry Jean Hart, whose rap name was “Block Da Foo Foo.” The value of the rap videos at trial was “outweighed by the overwhelming potential for prejudice,” the court said in a 5-4 decision.
“Any song that glorifies criminality, regardless of genre, is inherently prejudicial,” the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said. “The danger associated with playing these videos to the jury is that the jury might regard creative expression as proof that [Hart] engaged in criminal behavior.”
Hart had maintained that he gave a ride to a guy named “Mondo” and other people without realizing that they were going to commit a robbery or a murder. Hart said he is a nice person who does favors for others.
Hart’s mother reinforced that claim in her testimony. She said her son spent a lot of time in remedial courses at school, he was bullied as a child, he often doesn’t understand others’ intentions, and he is eager to please people.
Prosecutors introduced the rap videos to show Hart’s “level of sophistication” and his ability to understand what people are communicating.
One of the rap videos was called “I.W.T.,” which was short for “I Won’t Tell.”
A second video called “Off Days” shows Hart with a crowd dancing and singing inside a house. Hart appeared to be lip-synching rap lyrics that refer to weapons, cough syrup and being a “trap king.”
At trial, Hart testified that the “I Won’t Tell” video wasn’t about the case against him and, “It’s just a song.” He said his words in the second video were written by another rapper who appeared in the video.
A prosecutor asked Hart what it meant to be a “trap king,” which the Urban Dictionary defines as “an exuberant drug dealer that hones a legendary street stature.” Hart replied that rap artists such as Gucci Mane and Jay-Z talk about it all the time.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals noted that courts in other jurisdictions have recognized that the admission of rap music or rap videos is highly prejudicial because the nature of the lyrics distract from the charged offense.
Rap often uses exaggeration and braggadocio, the court said. Nor is it the only music genre that uses exaggeration.
“Other than Taylor Swift, who is known to write songs based on her personal experiences, it is not reasonable to assume that all lyrics are autobiographical as to past or future conduct, unless there is direct evidence to suggest otherwise,” the court said.
“Holding song lyrics to their literal meaning would lead to the following conclusions: Freddie Mercury ‘killed a man;’ Bob Marley ‘shot the sheriff;’ Macy Gray ‘committed murder and … got away;’ the band formerly known as the Dixie Chicks killed Earl; and classically, Johnny Cash ‘shot a man just to watch him die.’”
Hat tip to appellate attorney Doug Gladden, who wrote about the case on X, formerly known as Twitter.
See also:
“Should violent rap lyrics be admissible in a criminal trial? New Jersey supremes to decide”
“Defendant’s ‘disturbing’ rap lyrics should not have been admitted at trial, NJ high court says”
“Do rapper’s lyrics support conviction? ACLU cites Johnny Cash song, says lower court was wrong”
