Editor’s note: This column contains explicit language.
Lil’ Boosie is out chea!
But he’s not out gang-banging with guns on West Garfield Street with his crew as depicted in his music video for “We Out Chea.”
This time, Boosie’s out chea (out of Angola, that is) for trial. Jury selection started Monday.
The Baton Rouge rapper, whose real name is Torrence Hatch, is facing a first-degree murder charge in the murder-for-hire of Terry Boyd.
Hatch is accused of paying Michael “Marlo Mike” Louding to kill Boyd in 2009.
Boosie is currently in jail for conspiring to smuggle drugs into Angola and a third-offense marijuana possession charge.
The trial is like any other, except for one thing – District Judge Mike Erwin is allowing the jurors to hear some of Boosie’s ultra-violent lyrics.
This move brings up the question: Should one’s creative work be available for use against him or her in court?
Prosecutor Dana Cummings said she considers some of the lyrics “admission” and will use them to demonstrate Boosie’s “intent, motive and plan,” according to The Advocate.
It doesn’t seem like it would be too hard to convince the jury Boosie is a killer from the lyrics of many of his songs – which is why they should not be allowed in court.
In one song, titled “187,” Boosie raps, “I’m the reason why the murder rate is sky high,” and “any nigga who try to play me, they dead now.”
The chorus repeats the word “murda.”
In another song, “Lime Light,” Boosie raps, “Marlo Mike up in the back seat beggin’ for a body.”
In “We Out Chea,” Boosie raps in the first verse, “Fuck wit me, die slow,” and “I’m going to do this shit myself, fuck the consequences.”
The music video also depicts Boosie and his crew a few blocks from campus pointing pistols into the camera and beating a man in an empty lot.
Sure, the music is violent. But does it necessarily show guilt? Look at Bret Easton Ellis’ novel “American Psycho.” It’s filled with extremely graphic murders involving chain saws, acid and nail guns, among others. That’s far more intense than any Boosie song, but Ellis was never accused of murder – just indecency and a sick mind.
Another example is Eminem. In his song “3 a.m.,” he raps about wrapping his cousin in Christmas lights, pushing him in a bath tub, cutting him into pieces and then drinking his blood. No one pointed at Eminem and called him a killer, either.
But imagine if these artists were on trial for a violent crime. Displaying the violent aspects of their art for the jury can only do one thing – imply guilt.
So why is it happening now to Boosie?
Whether or not he is guilty, the lyrics are probably being allowed because the prosecutors don’t have enough evidence to convict him.
If they did have enough evidence, there would be no need to let the jury listen to the music. Otherwise, the facts would speak for themselves. Though I am not a lawyer, I would suggest Judge Irwin implement a gag order on the jury so they do not listen to Boosie’s songs or watch his music videos.
I doubt one can listen to Boosie’s songs or watch his videos and still view him objectively for a fair trial.
It’s hard to defend someone who appears to be a criminal through his or her art, especially when the person is on trial for murder.
But it’s a low-blow to use someone’s art against him or her in court.
Allowing creative work in court sets a precedent for the future. Will artists start to suppress their creativity for fear it could be used against them in court?
I hope not, but if all goes as planned, Boosie will be found guilty whether or not he really is.
See you at the Angola Prison Rodeo.
Chris Grillot is a 21-year-old English and mass communication senior from New Orleans. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_cgrillot.
 
—- Contact Chris Grillot at [email protected]