The state struck Black jurors from the jury in a racially biased way?

The defense claims that Dallas County prosecutors deliberately removed all prospective Black jurors from Broadnax's trial, citing it as evidence of systemic racial bias in the death penalty system — including jury selection and the use of rap lyrics at sentencing.

The Truth

This claim has been reviewed and rejected by every court that has examined it — both state and federal. The record shows that prosecutors struck jurors consistently and without regard to race. The sole criterion was simple: any juror who indicated they opposed the death penalty or did not believe it should be invoked was removed from the panel. That standard was applied equally across all races. The one exception noted in the record was a single juror struck for a unique answer regarding a defendant's drug use — not race.

The only racially driven element in this case came from Broadnax himself. In his own recorded words, he stated they traveled to Garland because that's "where the rich white folks live."

High on PCP?

Broadnax dismisses his involvement in the murder, as well as his numerous media interviews, by claiming he was under the influence of PCP.

The Truth

There’s no evidence he was actually under the influence of PCP. In fact, when Broadnax was arrested, the arresting officer made note that Broadnax did not appear to be intoxicated.

That evening, police officers in Texarkana (which is about 150 miles from Garland) saw Swan’s car in a high-crime area. After a check of the license plates returned information for a Cadillac, rather than a Ford, officers pulled the vehicle over. [Broadnax] gave the officers his name, and after they learned that there were warrants for [his] arrest, the officers placed [him] in custody. The arresting officer testified that [Broadnax] did not appear to be intoxicated when he was pulled over. ... In addition to the arresting officer’s testimony that [Broadnax] was lucid at the time of his arrest, the reporters who interviewed him described [Broadnax] as intelligent and rational. The jail nurse, too, testified that [Broadnax] did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Furthermore, in his confession to reporters, he explained the details of the crime scene perfectly. Specifically he mentions shooting Steve in the head as he was trying to get back on his feet.

At Broadnax’s trial, the medical examiner testified that Swan had suffered an intermediate-range gunshot wound to the head, as well as a second gunshot wound to the left side of his chest.

How is it possible for him to remember these details if he was allegedly high on PCP for over 4 days straight? And if being high on PCP is supposed to explain his lack of remorse in media interviews, it certainly doesn’t account for his behavior months later in court, when he laughed at the victim’s mother. District attorney David Alex later said Broadnax's reaction was telling. "Even at this point, after seeing how many people he's affected, he's still over there laughing," he said. PCP can't explain away that. Broadnax is a sociopath who shows no remorse for what he has done.

A new confession?

Demarius Cummings now claims that he, not Broadnax, was the one who killed Matthew and Steve, and that Broadnax was told to take the blame.

The Truth

First of all, after 17 years of Broadnax being on death row, why is this new version of events only emerging weeks before his scheduled execution? Throughout years of appeals, Broadnax has never claimed that he was not the killer. In fact, after the murders, Broadnax reportedly bragged to multiple people, including friends and family, and even through text messages, that he was responsible. Cummings told the same story at the time. So why, 17 years later, has the story completely changed? In the original trial, his own defense admits he was the killer.

At trial, the defense conceded that [Broadnax] had shot Swan and Butler, but argued that [he] was under the influence of marijuana and PCP at the time of the murders. The defense further posited that [Broadnax] was still intoxicated at the time of his multiple television interviews and confessions four days after his arrest.

• Cummings claims the plan to pin the murders on Broadnax was devised while the two were together in Dallas County Jail (3:04 in the video). But this timeline is impossible. Long before either man ever saw the inside of a jail cell, the story was already out. Broadnax and Cummings had returned to a Southeast Dallas apartment where Broadnax boasted about the robbery, showed off Swan's driver's license, and drove away in Swan's stolen Ford Crown Victoria. Within fifteen minutes of them leaving, a witness had already seen the news reports, put the pieces together, and called the Garland Police. There was no opportunity to coordinate a story, witnesses had already spoken before any alleged plan could have been made. When Cummings was taken into custody, he corroborated what those witnesses had already reported. The timeline doesn't leave room for a conspiracy. It never did.

  Later that day, [Broadnax] and his cousin, Demarius Cummings, arrived at the Southeast Dallas apartment where [Broadnax] had been staying with family members. While there, [Broadnax] boasted of “hit[ting] a lick”—street slang for committing a robbery—and displayed Swan’s driver’s license. [Broadnax] and Cummings left the apartment in Swan’s Ford Crown Victoria, after telling those present that they planned to sell the vehicle. Fifteen minutes after [Broadnax] and Cummings left, [Broadnax’s] aunt’s friend who had been present in the apartment saw news reports of the double homicide. She realized that [Broadnax] and Cummings were likely involved, and she called the Garland Police.

  Nothing about his new timeline fits with the reality of multiple witness testimony.

So why is it that in this new confession, which supposedly changes everything, he gets even the most basic facts of the case completely wrong? His word today is unreliable, while the facts of the case remain consistent. Broadnax was always the shooter.

But Broadnax's DNA was not found on the gun?

The defense now points to the DNA results as evidence of Broadnax's innocence, noting that his DNA was not found on the trigger or the right grip of the murder weapon — and that Cummings' DNA was.

The Truth

According to Cummings himself at trial, the gun was wiped down after the murders. In the 4 days following the killings, Cummings returned the gun to its original owner in exchange for an AK-47 — meaning any DNA remaining on the weapon would naturally belong to Cummings, who had handled it last.

Interestingly, in some of his original appeals, Broadnax claimed the DNA/serology evidence was "damning" and "central to his conviction" — arguing aggressively to have it thrown out on a technicality, specifically that the serologist who prepared the report never testified in person. However, Broadnax's DNA was not found on the murder weapon, not in the victim's pocket, and not on any other tested item. Cummings' DNA was found inside Swan's pants pocket, and Butler's DNA was present in blood splatter on Cummings' Nike tennis shoes — consistent with Cummings' role in looting the bodies while Broadnax was the shooter. The physical evidence matched exactly to the story Broadnax gave reporters.

In other words, the DNA evidence told exactly the story the witnesses already had. So why was Broadnax fighting so hard to suppress it? If anything, the absence of his DNA on the murder weapon helped him. It's possible he simply misunderstood what the results showed — but it's equally possible that his instinct to attack the forensic evidence was a desperate attempt to get off death row. Either way, the attempt to suppress evidence that was never damning to begin with only serves to undermine his credibility further.

Conclusion

While it is true that innocent people have been wrongfully convicted and executed in the state of Texas. James Broadnax is not one of those men.

The evidence against Broadnax was overwhelming and came from multiple independent sources — his own admissions in recorded media interviews, witness testimony, physical evidence, and his own written words found in journals and a jail cell. He told a news camera that they targeted Garland because that's "where the rich white folks live." He admitted to shooting the victims in the head when they tried to stand. He expressed zero remorse, said he didn't regret the murders, and threatened to kill again if given a life sentence.

His appeals have been reviewed and denied by multiple state and federal courts, each finding no merit in his claims. His racial bias arguments were rejected at every level. His confrontation clause challenge targeted DNA evidence that actually excluded him, meaning he fought to suppress evidence that was helping his own case, raising serious questions about what he truly feared investigators might find.

Perhaps most telling is the eleventh-hour claim by co-defendant Demarius Cummings, who, seventeen years after the fact and weeks before Broadnax's scheduled execution, suddenly claims he was the real shooter. Yet Broadnax's own defense team never made this argument at trial, Broadnax himself bragged about the killings to multiple people, and Cummings' new account contradicts the established timeline and witness testimony. A last-minute confession riddled with factual errors is not new evidence, it is a desperate attempt to rewrite history.

The defense campaign has sought to mislead the public by misrepresenting the facts, cherry-picking details out of context, and framing a thoroughly reviewed conviction as a miscarriage of justice. The record tells a different story. Every court that has examined this case has reached the same conclusion.

James Broadnax was given a fair trial, was represented by counsel, and was convicted on the strength of his own words and actions. The evidence speaks for itself.

Instead of trying to honor this killer, pay respects to the victims.