In 2005 prosecutors in New Jersey pointed to the violent rap
lyrics written by a criminal suspect as evidence of that man’s
“motive and intent” to commit murder and other misdeeds. During the
trial, those lyrics—which had zero connection to the actual crimes
at issue—were read to the jury, which ultimately voted to convict
the man of attempted murder.
In an opinion issued on Monday, the New Jersey Supreme Court
nullified that verdict, ordering a new trial on the grounds that
“the violent, profane, and disturbing rap lyrics authored by
defendant constituted highly prejudicial evidence against him that
bore little or no probative value as to any motive or intent behind
the attempted murder offense with which he was charged.” Unless
such material has “a direct connection to the specifics of the
offense,” the court ruled, prosecutors are forbidden from
introducing it as evidence.
The
New Jersey Supreme Court got it right. As the ACLU noted in an
amicus brief it filed in
the case, “that a rap artist wrote lyrics seemingly embracing a
world of violence is no more reason to ascribe to him a motive and
intent to commit violent acts” than it would be “to indict Johnny
Cash for having ‘shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.'”
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling in State v.
Skinner is available
here.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1o9fNL0
via IFTTT