Delegates revisit 'PACE' evidence bill to limit use of lyrics and artistic expression in court
Loading...
Summary
House Bill 687 (PACE Act) would codify a factual/temporal nexus test for admitting artistic expression (lyrics) in criminal trials; proponents including artists, academics and free‑speech groups argued the change prevents misuse of creative work, while prosecutors and some state's attorneys raised concerns about limiting evidence.
Delegate Marlon Ampri told the House Judiciary Committee he seeks a statutory test to guide courts before admitting artistic expression as evidence in criminal trials. "This bill protects free expression while maintaining fairness in the legal process," Ampri said, adding that the measure is now in its fourth hearing in the House.
Panelists framed the bill as narrow and protective of free speech, not a ban on evidence. Phil Wolotsky, executive director of Free Our Art, described broad bipartisan sponsorship and said the bill mirrors a model adopted in other states. Howard University law professor Lucius Outlaw III, testifying in favor, said case law alone leaves inconsistency and that a statutory standard would make application uniform: "Rather than looking for a close nexus between the lyrics and the details of the crime itself, we must examine ... whether they include any statement bearing on why [the defendant] acted," he said, referencing recent Maryland appellate decisions.
Supporters acknowledged exceptions: prosecutors could still introduce artist statements that are factually tied to an offense under a close temporal and factual nexus standard; the proposal explicitly excludes factual admissions and victim‑specific statements. Committee members pressed witnesses about whether existing rules of relevance and Rule 404 already limit misuse; proponents said prosecutors sometimes use propensity evidence to bypass relevance limits and that codification would reduce bias against certain musical genres.
No final action was taken; the committee will consider the bill and any amendments — including a state's attorney request framed as a possible tweak to the probative vs. prejudicial standard — in subsequent deliberations.
