N.J. Supreme Court's ruling on gangster rap lyrics gets mixed reception


The state Supreme Court ruled 6-0 that violent rap lyrics can't be used as evidence of guilt unless they have a "strong nexus" to the underlying crime being charged.

(Patti Sapone/The Star-Ledger)

TRENTON — Gangster-rap lyrics depicting shootings, knifings and rapes can't be used as evidence of guilt unless they include a "strong nexus" to the underlying crime being charged, the state Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-0 decision.

In an opinion by Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, the high court ordered a new trial for Vonte Skinner, who was convicted of attempting to murder a drug dealer, Lamont Peterson, in Burlington County in 2005.

At trial, the prosecution read at length from Skinner's notebooks filled with graphically violent rap lyrics. But the lyrics were penned years before the shooting in some cases, and the Supreme Court said today they "risked poisoning the jury."

Skinner's public defender and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey welcomed the court's ruling, saying it bolstered the freedom of artistic expression.

The state Attorney General's Office said it disagreed with the outcome of the case. The Burlington County Prosecutor's Office, which handled Skinner's trial, said it was prepared to go back to court to try to reinstate his conviction on other evidence.

Here are their reactions:

Jason Coe, Skinner's public defender: "We're pleased with the court's decision. We agree that the use of a defendant's artistic expression in criminal cases should be subject to carefully drawn limitations in order to avoid undue prejudice. In this particular case, the court reached the correct result because the defendant's writings had no connection to the charged offenses and because their admission served no purpose other than to prejudice the jury. We're happy that, as a result, Mr. Skinner will receive a fair trial."

Robert D. Bernardi, the Burlington County prosecutor: "We appreciate the court's direction going forward on the use of such lyrics. This decision provides guidance to all New Jersey prosecutors who contemplate the use of such evidence in the future. We stand ready to retry Mr. Skinner on his outstanding attempted murder charge." Bernardi's office added that Skinner remains in Burlington County Jail on $250,850 bail.

Ezra Rosenberg, a lawyer at the Dechert firm who argued in favor of Skinner on behalf of the ACLU's state chapter: "From cave paintings to Johnny Cash to Game of Thrones, the history of art reflects all elements of society, including violent ones. Stripping a creative work of its context is a poor method for prosecuting crimes, and the court was correct to determine Skinner's lyrics had little probative value to the charges he faced, but could highly prejudice a jury against him. The inferences drawn from rap lyrics in particular, as opposed to other works, highlight the danger that racial bias may play in the American criminal justice system."

Lee Moore, spokesman for acting Attorney General John Hoffman: "While we certainly understand and respect the Supreme Court's ruling, we respectfully disagree on this issue. Although music lyrics should not be used to paint defendants unfairly with a broad brush, we believe that the lyrics at issue were properly admitted because they were directly probative of defendant's motive and intent to commit the attempted murder of Lamont Peterson. The lyrics clearly indicated defendant's role as an enforcer in a criminal street gang, and they also illustrated his belief that those who violate the gang's rules must be killed. The evidence was necessary for the jury to understand why defendant would repeatedly shoot a member of his own gang."

Justice LaVecchia wrote that in some instances, when the lyrics match the circumstances of the crime or mention the victim by name, they could be used as evidence at trial. But in Skinner's case, none of the lyrics were on point, the court found.

"There is an utter absence of clear and convincing evidence ... that defendant engaged previously in any of the events portrayed in his rap lyrics," LaVecchia wrote, adding later: "The lyrics can only be regarded as fictional accounts. The state has produced no evidence otherwise."

In future cases, courts should consider whether other evidence available serves the same purpose as any violent rap lyrics written by a suspect, and use that evidence instead. The Supreme Court said there is a "difficulty of pronouncing a hard and fast rule to govern the admission of rap lyrics. That said, extreme caution must be exercised when expressive work is involved, particularly when such expression involves social commentary, exaggeration, and fictional accounts."