Should Violent Rap Lyrics Be Admitted As Criminal Evidence?

In 2005 prosecutors in New Jersey gained a murder conviction
against a man named Vonte Skinner based largely on the fact that
Skinner was fond of composing violent rap songs. During trial, the
prosecution read lengthy portions of Skinner’s lyrics, telling the
jury they were hearing evidence of the man’s violent, criminal
disposition. The jury ultimately agreed.

On appeal, that ruling was overturned.
According to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division,
it had “significant doubt about whether the jurors would have found
the defendent guilty if they had not been required to listen to the
extended reading of these disturbing and highly prejudicial
lyrics.”

Skinner’s case is now before the New Jersey Supreme Court, which
heard oral argument this morning and must now decide whether or not
those lyrics should count as permissible evidence in a criminal
trial.

Simply put, the lyrics should be deemed
inadmissible. As the New Jersey 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.’”
Indeed, the First Amendment plainly includes the freedom to write
about violent, gruesome, and offensive things without facing legal
persecution for having done so. The New Jersey Supreme Court should
void Skinner’s conviction.