Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, April twenty ninth, and
Speaker 1: the state of Texas is set to execute a man.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing. They're going to execute him for
Speaker 1: a murder that another man has confessed too. And with that,
Speaker 1: welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes. This
Speaker 1: is one of two executions scheduled for this evening in
Speaker 1: the US, one in Florida, this one in Texas, and
Speaker 1: this one has all kinds of appeals flying around. You
Speaker 1: got rappers involved and another confession. This is a doozy
Speaker 1: of a case.
Speaker 2: It certainly is.
Speaker 3: We're talking about thirty seven year old James Broadnacks. But Scotis,
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court of the United States, has denied all
Speaker 3: of those appeals you were just talking about because this
Speaker 3: has been a headline maker, a headline grabber, because of
Speaker 3: some of the powerful folks who have been on his side.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you have issues here, Robes, involving race. You
Speaker 1: have issues involving rap and we're going to get to
Speaker 1: both of them. But the crime here is a heinous one.
Speaker 1: It's a double murder. He was convicted of convicted of
Speaker 1: committing it along with his cousin. Now Robes you make
Speaker 1: this point, James Broadnax is on death row. He's thirty
Speaker 1: seven years old. It's almost like a wait what And
Speaker 1: the crime was helped me with the.
Speaker 2: Year two thousand and nine.
Speaker 3: So I just said, wow, we have covered so many
Speaker 3: executions and I can't think of one where the crime
Speaker 3: had two thousand something in front of it. We've been
Speaker 3: dealing with crimes that happened as far back as the
Speaker 3: nineteen seventies, nineteen eighties, nineteen nineties. It's rare that a
Speaker 3: case goes from being adjudicated to an execution this quickly.
Speaker 1: Frankly, yeah, and he is a really it's got crazy.
Speaker 1: He's a really young man, thirty seven year old because
Speaker 1: he was nineteen rogue? Do you think about this? This
Speaker 1: guy's on death row And we always use the comparison
Speaker 1: because Analysa is still nineteen right, right to think he
Speaker 1: was nineteen years old when he, according to authorities, according
Speaker 1: to him, decided to go out and get high on
Speaker 1: marijuana and PCP and go run around with his cousin
Speaker 1: looking for somebody to rob. And sure enough they found
Speaker 1: somebody to rob, two young men who were music producers
Speaker 1: outside of a studio. There they meant to rob them,
Speaker 1: shot them, both killed them, both took off in their car.
Speaker 1: Eventually one of their own family members called turned them in.
Speaker 1: They got called. They both confessed, not just confessed ropes,
Speaker 1: they confessed on camera. For whatever reason, James Broadnaxt decided
Speaker 1: he wanted to be a TV star and did a
Speaker 1: bunch of interviews with a bunch of local TV stations
Speaker 1: from the jailhouse, saying what he did.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they both brought next and his cousin corrected separate
Speaker 3: jailhouse interviews, confessing, telling, telling the world what they had done.
Speaker 1: Open and shutcase.
Speaker 2: Guess they didn't have good at attorneys.
Speaker 1: I do not know what it's about. And I've seen them.
Speaker 1: You've seen some of the videos of them smiling at times,
Speaker 1: and some of these videos and posing and pictures and
Speaker 1: images we've seen. Who knows what was going on. But
Speaker 1: the people they killed were twenty eight and twenty six
Speaker 1: years old.
Speaker 3: These were young men, and they had children, They had
Speaker 3: young families, Steven Swan and Matthew Butler, and I from
Speaker 3: what I have read, their wives and their children. Obviously
Speaker 3: it was they happened at such a young age. They
Speaker 3: lost their lives at twenty six and twenty eight. But
Speaker 3: yes they've gone on, and yes they've built lives of
Speaker 3: the anger is so fresh they want this execution to
Speaker 3: happen well.
Speaker 1: And now Robes, this is one where we don't know
Speaker 1: now the other one we had discussed. You could check
Speaker 1: out the episode we have on that one in Florida.
Speaker 1: It's on the feed right before right after you have
Speaker 1: to help me.
Speaker 3: There'd be, it'd be on the feed right before this
Speaker 3: episode we go over the details of the Florida execution
Speaker 3: that's also taking place on Thursday at six pms.
Speaker 1: Okay, so that one doesn't seem like much of a chance.
Speaker 1: All the appeals have been exhausted. This one is a
Speaker 1: little bit of a different situation. I'm not saying it
Speaker 1: has a good chance for things to stop get stopped.
Speaker 1: But he still has at least one appeal out there
Speaker 1: that's pending. But he had two others that have been
Speaker 1: kind of dealt away with. And Robes, these were like
Speaker 1: strong and interesting I mean appeals here or grounds for appeal.
Speaker 1: I guess they were throwing everything at it, but it
Speaker 1: had to do with race, robes and of all things
Speaker 1: rap lyrics. These are the basis for two of their appeals.
Speaker 3: And part of the rap lyrics appeal was that basically
Speaker 3: because of those lyrics he was using, they used it
Speaker 3: against him, basically saying that he wanted to die or
Speaker 3: that it explain how they use the rap lyrics to
Speaker 3: actually use it to sentence.
Speaker 1: Him to Yeah, isn't that crazy? They the rap lyrics,
Speaker 1: they say, were not a part of his trial, but
Speaker 1: during sentencing, they brought up rap lyrics that he wrote
Speaker 1: in his own spare time, doing his own thing, just
Speaker 1: as an independent wasn't some artists. They just had some
Speaker 1: rap lyrics of his. Now, if you listen to hardcore rap,
Speaker 1: if you take that stuff literally, every single rapper should
Speaker 1: be arrested. But it's the argument is it was art.
Speaker 1: But they said this brought up so many questions and
Speaker 1: put in the jurors minds, which were eleven white, one black.
Speaker 1: It brought up racial stereotypes and it didn't separate the
Speaker 1: art for what it was, and instead they thought he
Speaker 1: was some monster that was literally what he was writing
Speaker 1: lyrics about. And that was one of their appeals was
Speaker 1: based on. It didn't go anywhere and.
Speaker 3: In the courtroom, the jury, when you know they're deliberating,
Speaker 3: they asked for questions, They asked to read the lyrics,
Speaker 3: which pointed to the fact that they were leaning on
Speaker 3: those lyrics when they were deciding whether or not to
Speaker 3: sentence him to death.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's so, it mattered. So you have folks the
Speaker 1: likes of Ti what Young Thug was one you mentioned,
Speaker 1: Travis Scott have actually all written friend of the court briefings.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Fat Joe, record executive, Kevin Lyles, Anthony Anderson, actor
Speaker 3: and comedian also weighing in. So yeah, a bunch of
Speaker 3: big names were behind that part of the appeal.
Speaker 1: And the way they put it his defense attorneys they
Speaker 1: turned artistic expression into a death warrant. But the argument
Speaker 1: here is that they are using lyrics as evidence of
Speaker 1: criminality or to enhance a criminal defendant's sentence, and so
Speaker 1: there is concern about that to the point that enough
Speaker 1: folks in the industry at least thought it was worth
Speaker 1: speaking on. Now, the other issue that's dangling, I say,
Speaker 1: has one more appeal role was because somebody said they
Speaker 1: confess they are the ones they're actually saying he is
Speaker 1: not the one who killed these two men. And who
Speaker 1: could say that other than the person who was there
Speaker 1: with him, right, Yes.
Speaker 2: His cousin, Demarius Cummings.
Speaker 3: And so he has given a sworn AFFI David saying
Speaker 3: he was the shooter. And he claims that he convinced
Speaker 3: Broadnaxt to take the blame because he had a worse
Speaker 3: rap sheet that apparently Broadnacks had something only very minor
Speaker 3: on his rap sheet, And so they figured if he
Speaker 3: said he was the one who pulled the trigger, if
Speaker 3: he was the one who actually did the shootings, that
Speaker 3: he would get off a little easier than Damarius Cummings would.
Speaker 3: But it turned out quite the opposite.
Speaker 1: Awfully convenient that this is coming up now.
Speaker 3: Yes it is, and that I'm sure is going to
Speaker 3: be a part of the consideration that consider the source
Speaker 3: and consider the timing.
Speaker 1: Okay, consider both, and we do have to consider that
Speaker 1: the cousin is also spending life in prison right now
Speaker 1: without the possibility of parole.
Speaker 2: Nothing to lose.
Speaker 1: Sure, now do you buy this part of it? Robes
Speaker 1: He claims that he's only coming forward now and only
Speaker 1: thought it was important to do so because he's only
Speaker 1: now finding out that his cousin had a death date
Speaker 1: set if.
Speaker 3: You will, Yeah, his execution date had been set so
Speaker 3: that is why he figured now would be the time
Speaker 3: to admit, by the way, I was the one who
Speaker 3: actually committed the murder.
Speaker 1: Any little part of you getting close to buying that
Speaker 1: not really okay? So we here it is the words
Speaker 1: from the cousin now who says he was the trigger
Speaker 1: man says it was not his cousin that's going to
Speaker 1: die tomorrow by Lethland Jackson. No, no, no, it wasn't him
Speaker 1: that pulled the trigger. The cousin is saying it was
Speaker 1: actually me, and he said this in his affidavit. When
Speaker 1: mister Herzog, the attorney, told me on February twentieth that
Speaker 1: James was scheduled to be executed on April thirtieth, I
Speaker 1: decided it was time to come clean, and I told
Speaker 1: him that it was me and not James who had
Speaker 1: shot the victims. I want to clear my conscience and
Speaker 1: do not want James to be executed for shooting two
Speaker 1: people when I was the one who committed those acts.
Speaker 1: It was my decision to come clean with the facts
Speaker 1: set forth above and sign this declaration. How does that
Speaker 1: sound to you?
Speaker 2: I mean, yes, it sounds convenient.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, I mean the problem is is there any proof
Speaker 3: to back up what he's saying?
Speaker 2: Is this just a he said?
Speaker 3: He said, does any of the evidence, Do any of
Speaker 3: the forensic support what he is saying?
Speaker 2: That would be the question that I would.
Speaker 1: Have and the question, and you please help me. I
Speaker 1: think I'm necessarily putting on the spot. We were talking
Speaker 1: about it before we started here. There were some things
Speaker 1: they were pointing to and think they were about the
Speaker 1: gun and DNA, suggesting that they did have a way
Speaker 1: of showing improving that it was the cousin.
Speaker 3: Correct, there was something put forward that that the gun
Speaker 3: had the DNA of Broadnaxx's cousin, and he said, the
Speaker 3: reason why it was only my DNA on that gun
Speaker 3: is because I was the one who shot it. Now,
Speaker 3: I didn't see anything to back it up or any
Speaker 3: verification of that, but that is what he is claiming
Speaker 3: that the DNA, only his DNA was on the gun,
Speaker 3: not broad Nax's, and that bolsters his point. There's a
Speaker 3: reason for that. It's because I was the one who
Speaker 3: actually pulled the trigger.
Speaker 1: Well, so far, any court this has brought before has
Speaker 1: said no, they're not going to listen, They're not going
Speaker 1: to consider the confession at all. They don't have a
Speaker 1: reason to consider the confession. So there's one other appeal
Speaker 1: that's dangling out there, so we might have a chance.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing, Robes, So what even if it
Speaker 1: turns out that he was not the one who pulled
Speaker 1: the trigger, law says he could still be the one
Speaker 1: to get the death penalty. Stay here, explain. We continue
Speaker 1: here on Amy and TJ. On a week that the
Speaker 1: US is said to have two executions on the same
Speaker 1: night Tomorrow night, April thirtieth, one execution set for Flora,
Speaker 1: the other in Texas that we've been discussing here, Robes.
Speaker 1: The one we're discussing here James broadnaxt sentence for a
Speaker 1: double murder in which he was convicted of being the
Speaker 1: trigger man in a double murder. His cousin has come
Speaker 1: forward said no, no, no, no, I was the one, not James,
Speaker 1: who pulled the trigger. But Robes, it actually does not
Speaker 1: matter legally speaking, they have a different way of saying it.
Speaker 1: They're in Texas, but whereas it's South Carolina where you
Speaker 1: spend time. This is the law. It doesn't matter actually
Speaker 1: who pulled the trigger.
Speaker 3: That's in South Carolina. It is called the hand of
Speaker 3: one is the hand of all. And I actually watched
Speaker 3: a young man be sentenced to death as.
Speaker 2: Well in that state for not.
Speaker 3: Even being the person who pulled the trigger, but just
Speaker 3: being in the group where a pregnant woman was killed.
Speaker 3: And so that has been on the books for quite
Speaker 3: some time. Is it called the law of parties in
Speaker 3: the state of Texas, So that would rain true. But
Speaker 3: I'm actually curious because yes, that could lead to a
Speaker 3: conviction of a murder conviction, a first degree murder conviction,
Speaker 3: even if he didn't pull the trigger. But wouldn't you
Speaker 3: be looked at potentially differently in terms of what you're
Speaker 3: sentencing is life in prison versus the death penalty? Because
Speaker 3: his cousin, who I guess, was convicted despite not being
Speaker 3: the triggerman. He was given life in prison, so he's
Speaker 3: not facing the death penalty. His cousin is Broadnacks is
Speaker 3: because he was said to be the trigger man.
Speaker 1: And Robes, do you remember we had another case. I
Speaker 1: can't remember what state it was. Family members think it
Speaker 1: might have been brothers, and the guy who was sentenced
Speaker 1: to death didn't pull the trigger, correct, and there was
Speaker 1: a kind of fun I do remember this isn't that
Speaker 1: so it yes? To your point is the argument that
Speaker 1: some of his defense attorneys are making is that, yes,
Speaker 1: a jury could have sentenced him to the same thing
Speaker 1: and had the right to do so. But if they
Speaker 1: would have heard a different set of circumstances, would they
Speaker 1: have That is the point, Robes, And you'd have to
Speaker 1: say probably not.
Speaker 2: I would think probably not.
Speaker 3: But you never know, and he isn't going to get
Speaker 3: the chance to know because that would require a new hearing,
Speaker 3: a re sentencing hearing, and that seems highly unlikely at
Speaker 3: this point, and the parole.
Speaker 1: Board has told him no. The governor is not going
Speaker 1: to step in, but they do have, I believe, Robes.
Speaker 1: One appeal dangling out there, based on the confession that
Speaker 1: might be an option.
Speaker 3: Is that the Texas Supreme Court, basically the state supreme
Speaker 3: court there in Texas.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure who it's before.
Speaker 3: But it's before some sort of an appellate court, and
Speaker 3: they're considering whether or not to take into consideration the
Speaker 3: fact that his cousin has now confessed to being the triggerment.
Speaker 1: Because the race appeal option is gone and the rap appeal,
Speaker 1: the wrap appeal option is gone, so he has one
Speaker 1: last time. But if not, rolls, we're going to end
Speaker 1: up seeing two executions on the same night in the
Speaker 1: United States. I think they're scheduled an hour apart, correct
Speaker 1: in the US. So yeah, folks, we'll keep an eye
Speaker 1: on it because roads that this past several have gone smoothly,
Speaker 1: if you will. But a lot of people keep an
Speaker 1: eye on these because of these drugs that are used
Speaker 1: that sometimes it's still you can argue robes experimenting with
Speaker 1: to a certain degree, but folk would appreciate you spending
Speaker 1: time with us. It's always on behalf of my dear
Speaker 1: Amy robot. I'm tjing talk soon, m hm.