Posted on 07/04/2002 6:55:40 PM PDT by 07055
They say he can't even spell gangsta rap.
He says they give lawyers a bad name.
There's rhythm and heat in the flow of words between U.S. Dist. Judge Robert H. Cleland and three attorneys for Memphis rapper Project Pat.
But it's not the rapid-fire staccato that made Patrick Houston a million-selling recording artist with raps like Chickenhead.
For one, the words haven't been growled into microphones but typed in a series of legal briefs filed since Houston was convicted in March by a Jackson, Tenn., jury of two counts of being a felon in possession of a gun.
The argument climaxed when Cleland sentenced Houston on June 11 to four years and three months in jail. The hip-hop star's lawyers are now appealing to the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Defense attorneys William D. Massey and Lorna S. McClusky of Memphis as well as John E. Herbison of Nashville argue that Cleland, a visiting federal judge from Detroit, allowed the images of guns and gangsters found in Houston's rhymes to be used unfairly during the trial.
Herbison said Houston's lyrics were also a factor in his sentence.
"We contend . . . (Cleland) increased the sentence as a result of the lyrics of some of Mr. Houston's songs," Herbison said by phone from Nashville. "I have some concerns . . . as to whether that violates the First Amendment."
In June, all three attorneys signed a motion written principally by Herbison that sought a new trial for Houston. The motion argued the rapper deserved a new trial because Cleland:
"Effectively allowed (the government) to throw a skunk into the jury box."
Spoke to the jury in "code words."
Issued jury instructions that were "subtle but pernicious."
Took improper "judicial notice" of gangsta rap - "a musical genre that the Court apparently cannot even spell correctly" - prejudicing the jury.
The day before sentencing Houston, Cleland denied the motion for a new trial. He said the attorneys were seeking to "mock and ridicule the court," particularly about the error he made when instructing a court reporter to spell "gangsta" without the second "g."
"These three attorneys have good reason to be thoroughly embarrassed that they have authored and/or signed a brief . . . containing allegations and assertions that degrade and demean the judicial system, undermine the public's respect for the legal profession as a whole and give lawyers a bad name," he wrote.
Massey, McClusky and Herbison are "among those few lawyers whose professional reputations are significantly tarnished in the eyes of this court," the judge added.
Herbison said Cleland's strong language was "somewhat unusual." But he and Massey defended their argument for a new trial, including highlighting Cleland's spelling error.
"I was trying to paint the picture as to how things were interconnected," Herbison said. "It was a death-by-a-thousand-pinpricks kind of thing. The sum was greater than its parts."
Massey said the argument for a new trial was "sound advocacy, well within the bounds of propriety." "Without adversarial advocacy, the judicial system fails," Massey said.
Before the trial, the defense had sought to limit any questions to Houston about rap music or the lyrics to his songs, claiming it was ''protected speech.''
The issue surfaced again during jury selection.
Massey objected to any questions to prospective jurors about gangsta rap, telling Cleland: "It taints the jury right off the bat when we start talking about gangsters and guns. They equate one with the other."
Asst. U.S. Atty. Tony Arvin told Cleland that the use of the term gangsta rap referred specifically to Houston's style of music.
Massey still objected, fearing that the reference would allow the government to bar prospective black jurors. "I don't see the connection," Cleland replied.
"Because it's going to be African-American jurors that's going to have heard of gangsta rap and not the white jurors," Massey countered.
"I've heard of it. You've heard of it," Cleland said.
The attorneys and the judge didn't even agree on the racial composition of the jury.
The jury, according to the motion for a new trial, was "oh so incidentally whiter" than the jury at a trial in Memphis that ended with a hung jury.
But Cleland said the jury had the same racial composition - 10 white people and two black people - as the jury in the first trial. The trial was moved to Jackson because of a lack of courtroom space in Memphis, he said.
"The court concludes that the entirely unsupported allusion to racial discrimination found in counsel's 'oh, so incidentally whiter' statement is not-so-incidentally targeted at this judge personally," Cleland wrote.
Houston's federal charges stemmed from a January 2001 traffic stop in Frayser. Police on the lookout for several stolen Cadillac Escalades pulled over Houston in his Escalade and found two loaded revolvers within his reach under a front floor mat.
Because Houston was a convicted felon who served two years of a nine-year sentence on a state charge of aggravated robbery, he was forbidden from having any guns.
Officer Michael McCord testified at the Jackson trial that Houston admitted he was on parole and the guns were his; he said he needed them because he was a rapper.
At the same trial, two friends of Houston's testified that the guns were theirs and that they inadvertently left them in the car without Houston's knowledge.
After the Jackson trial, Cleland said their version of the story was "uncanny in its similarity" to the defense in the nationally publicized firearms trial of another rapper, Sean 'P-Diddy' Combs, acquitted on firearms and attempted bribery charges in New York in early 2001.
Isn't this the whole idea behind "hate crime" laws? If you have politically incorrect publications in your possession, you must be punished more severely for the "thought crime"?
I guess what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.
I don't know why there is even a question about this sentence. Why wasn't he just sent back to serve the remaining seven years of his sentence?
I don't want to argue about felonies which might not merit removing your right to own a firearm, but I do think that armed robbery is one felony that does justify such a ban.
That's not what I have a problem with. It's that he's no longer allowed to own a gun, vote, or hold office. We say that people are given a second chance, but that is not really the case. He's an outcast from society for the rest of his life because of the mistake he made.
Actually, I think he is considered a hero among the society he cares about because he raps about killing cops.
I'm not surprised by the choice of cars.
http://www.glaine.net/~vybin2k/projectpatlyrics.shtml
What would be an example of a trivial felony?
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)
He can get those rights back the same way he lost them. By "due process of law." (See Amendment V, US Constitution)
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)
Or, the Federal medical-pot club busts. Dealing pot is held in the same category as dealing speed or esctasy... this is ridiculous.
Oh, I get it. Felonies are "trivial" because you say they are. I just didn't think anything that could land you in jail would be considered "trivial."
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)
For an idea of Project Pat's lyrics, click here.
These gangsta guys always complain about prejudice, and how they can't be young black men with money and expensive things without someone thinking they are criminals. Reality is, it is the rare hardcore rapper who has not had run-ins with the law (if not prison time for felonies), and if a rapper is discovered to be squeaky clean despite lyrics speaking of his violent and debauched lifestyle, he is dismissed as inauthentic (see Van Winkle, Robert, aka "Vanilla Ice").
Is that a felony?
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.