Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Courts And Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislation would limit use of creative expression as criminal evidence; artists and civil‑rights groups back bill
Summary
Delegate Amprey introduced the PACE Act (HB 13‑46), which would establish a statutory test limiting when creative expression can be admitted as evidence in criminal trials.
Delegate Amprey presented House Bill 13‑46, the Protecting Artistic Creative Expression (PACE) Act, which would codify a multi‑factor test for courts to use before admitting creative expression — including song lyrics and other artistic works — as evidence in criminal proceedings.
Sponsor's case: the bill would require prosecutors to show that creative expression meets a four‑part threshold before admission: that (1) the defendant intended the expression to be taken literally; (2) the expression refers to specific facts of the alleged offense; (3) it is relevant to a disputed issue; and (4) its probative value cannot be obtained from other admissible evidence. "The goal here is to make sure that freedom of expression — creative expression — is properly protected in Maryland's courts," Delegate Amprey said.
Supporters and real‑world examples: testimony included artists, civil‑rights groups, the Recording Academy and advocates who argued lyrics have been used prejudicially in hundreds of cases and disproportionately against Black and brown artists. Lucius Outlaw, a criminal‑law professor, and others described past Maryland appellate decisions that limited lyric evidence and argued codifying the rule would provide clarity to trial judges and prosecutors. Several witnesses recounted local cases where lyrics were treated as autobiographical confessions.
Opponents and questions: some committee members and stakeholders asked whether existing case law and evidentiary rules already provide adequate protection; supporters said codification would create easier‑to‑apply standards and reduce inconsistent outcomes. Multiple stakeholders noted the bill is narrowly crafted and not a blanket protection for all artistic evidence; the sponsor and proponents said the bill preserves admissibility when the expression truly reflects specific facts of the offense.
The committee did not record a final vote in the transcript. Sponsors and supporters asked for an up‑or‑down vote after minor drafting adjustments discussed during testimony.
