How do you guys feel about prosecutors using rap lyrics in indictments?

[wballz]

On a serious note, for me, judges should tell juries to dismiss these lyrics that are provided as evidence.

But, lawyers will still try to pull an inception into the minds of the jury members.

 

[frshstunna]

Yall know what computer is all about.
He doesn't HIDE IT.

I def peeped yo posts alotta stuff showing black ppl wilding or committing crimes …N He quick to bump a quiet thread with some world star bs or a news clip along those lines

 

[Mark Antony]

I def peeped yo posts alotta stuff showing black ppl wilding or committing crimes …N He quick to bump a quiet thread with some world star bs or a news clip along those lines

Because of course the NT black illuminati responsible for all these lunatics committing crimes don't want you to see them.

 

[a blinkin]

Slippery slope. I’m for artistic expression, but I’m against violent crime. You can express yourself artistically, but if you’re including information about crimes you’ve committed in your art, you can’t be mad or surprised when a prosecutor prosecutes.

 

[Present]

New Jersey v. Skinner case. In 2014, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the appeal of a man named Vonte Skinner. Skinner's rap lyrics were admitted at his trial for attempted murder and related charges. The defendant wrote the lyrics years before the shooting occurred. After hearing the lyrics, along with the other evidence against the defendant, the jury convicted him. An appellate court ruled that the lyrics were highly prejudicial and should not have been admitted; the State of New Jersey then appealed, but the state supreme court agreed that the verses never should have come into evidence.

Evidence of What?​

In general, evidence of a criminal defendant's past bad actions cannot be introduced to show that he or she had a bad character and acted consistently with that bad character on a particular occasion (such as when the alleged crime occurred). This "character evidence" is acknowledged by the rules of evidence (such as Rule 404 of the Federal Rules) as having a unique tendency to prejudice jurors against the defendant.

But, evidence that falls into the category of character evidence may be admitted for purposes other than to show that the defendant acted in accordance with the character trait. For example, the State of New Jersey argued that Defendant Skinner's rap lyrics showed motive and intent during the shooting for which he was on trial. The prosecutors offered evidence that Skinner acted as "muscle" for a drug dealer and shot the victim in order to enforce "street law." Some of Skinner's lyrics referred to violent street show-downs ("[he] wouldn't listen, so I hit him with the Smithen").

Some rap lyrics are clearly political speech (for example, The Coup's "The Guillotine"). But even if Skinner's rhymes did not address political or public issues, they are expressions under the First Amendment. Expression does not have to be political in nature to be protected by the First Amendment. Artistic expression has been deemed protected; indeed, it is the "expressive conduct" itself that is protected. But, political speech is entitled to special protection under First Amendment decisions, one that requires a "heightened scrutiny" of governmental restriction. Where the government uses a person's political expressions against him in a criminal trial, it may violate his freedom of expression (and likely chill similar expression by other individuals who learn of his fate).

Much of rap, even that which is not overtly political, has political undertones. The ACLU argued that Skinner's lyrics fall into this category and are entitled to the special protection afforded political speech. Given this special protection, the ACLU asserted, Skinner's lyrics shouldn't have been admitted. And while the First Amendment wasn't the basis for the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in the Skinner case, the ACLU's point wasn't lost on the court.

It seems that rap is being viewed as an especially telling form of expression, unlike the murder ballads of everyone from Dolly Parton to the Grateful Dead. For example, imagine the decidedly non-rapper Paul McCartney on trial for mayhem, being forced to listen to "Helter Skelter" with the jury. Not likely—is that because he's merely a singer, not a rapper? This distinction resonated with the New Jersey high court in the Skinner case, as the judge authoring the opinion quipped, "One would not presume that Bob Marley, who wrote the well-known song ‘I Shot the Sheriff,' actually shot a sheriff...."

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/rap-lyrics-evidence-is-it-a-crime-rhyme.htm

 

[Magic33]

If you're dumb enough to snitch on yourself

 

[Present]

Free Speech Fam.

Bill of Rights.

If the prosecutor has to resort to playing your mix tape in court, they obviously don't have enough bars of their own to secure a conviction w/o violating your rights.

There's a reason these folks are only doing this to rappers.

 

[Magic33]

Free Speech Fam.

Bill of Rights.

If the prosecutor has to resort to playing your mix tape in court, they obviously don't have enough bars of their own to secure a conviction w/o violating your rights.

There's a reason these folks are only doing this to rappers.

Are wire taps free speech?

 

[Present]

Are wire taps free speech?

In this case, yes:

 

[spiceman80]

If they're dumb enough to rap about **** they've done, then go on social media and brag about it and leave a trail of breadcrumbs for police then they deserve what they get. This social media generation of people are attention starved. They can't wait to run online and broadcast what they've done. All police have to do is watch their pages, they're doing all the work for them. How can you blame them using it against them?

Let's be honest for a second. Majority of the rappers from the late 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, weren't bout that life, so their songs were lies. Or **** they saw growing up but wasn't part of. Those of whom who were, definitely embellished their misdoings . How many rappers claimed they moved wild bricks and had beamers, benzes, and lexus before rapping? The difference between then and now is you couldn't prove **** even if it was true. That seems to be the crux of it.

 

[wavycrocket]

If they're dumb enough to rap about **** they've done, then go on social media and brag about it and leave a trail of breadcrumbs for police then they deserve what they get. This social media generation of people are attention starved. They can't wait to run online and broadcast what they've done. All police have to do is watch their pages, they're doing all the work for them. How can you blame them using it against them?

Let's be honest for a second. Majority of the rappers from the late 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, weren't bout that life, so their songs were lies. Or **** they saw growing up but wasn't part of. Those of whom who were, definitely embellished their misdoings . How many rappers claimed they moved wild bricks and had beamers, benzes, and lexus before rapping? The difference between then and now is you couldn't prove **** even if it was true. That seems to be the crux of it.

Way off. Terrible analysis.

Are y’all actually discussing what op was talking about? Or just getting random takes off

 

[Present]

At the end of the day its artistic expression.

Free Speech.

There's a reason these folks are only doing this to rappers.

Boils down to character assassination / jury bias.

A Court of Law should have a higher standard than a Court of Public Opinions.

When a DA / Prosecutor is giving "free legal advice" its most likely at the cost of your Constitutional rights.

 

[Magic33]

At the end of the day its artistic expression.

Free Speech.

There's a reason these folks are only doing this to rappers.

Boils down to character assassination / jury bias.

A Court of Law should have a higher standard than a Court of Public Opinions.

You need to do more research on free speech.

If you use your social media in a way your company doesn't deem fit, can you scream free speech?

 

[VARNELL HILL]

It seems that rap is being viewed as an especially telling form of expression, unlike the murder ballads of everyone from Dolly Parton to the Grateful Dead. For example, imagine the decidedly non-rapper Paul McCartney on trial for mayhem, being forced to listen to "Helter Skelter" with the jury. Not likely—is that because he's merely a singer, not a rapper? This distinction resonated with the New Jersey high court in the Skinner case, as the judge authoring the opinion quipped, "One would not presume that Bob Marley, who wrote the well-known song ‘I Shot the Sheriff,' actually shot a sheriff...."

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/rap-lyrics-evidence-is-it-a-crime-rhyme.htm

What a ridiculous parallel

If a sheriff that Bob Marley had beef with was really shot dead...and there was ANY sort of evidence linking Bob Marley to that situation in addition to pointed lyrics in a song....then Bob Marley probably should have been questioned.

 

[ill steelo]

The lyric aspect isn’t worth talking about unless someone like Gunna gets years. He’s only linked to this by jewelry. The indictment has everyone else in there on real evidence. You subtract the lyrics & bail is still getting denied for them.

The larger problem is the main reason Thug & that other RICO happened is a lot of that stuff happened in affluent areas.

So, you can still do your dirt as you please in areas with relatively minimal economic development.

One zipcode is gentrified & crime is “cleaned up.” The poorer (typically minority) residents are displaced to another zip code and are still dealing with crime, usually perpetrated by the next batch of criminals who were also displaced.

So you don’t see any more stories about a little girl catching a stray to the head at the mall, which is a GREAT thing.

But you also don’t even hear about all the apartment complexes older than your parents that haven’t seen a single renovation EVER, hardly any maintenance repairs & overrun with rats, homicides & other atrocities.

 

[ahat]

What a ridiculous parallel

If a sheriff that Bob Marley had beef with was really shot dead...and there was ANY sort of evidence linking Bob Marley to that situation in addition to pointed lyrics in a song....then Bob Marley probably should have been questioned.

A rapper here is serving life because he killed a dude from a rival gang. On top of dna evidence, text messages, cell phone towers and ballistics etc they used his songs/videos as evidence. It was used to prove the motive for shooting dude was he was from a rival gang.

 

[VARNELL HILL]

A rapper here is serving life because he killed a dude from a rival gang. On top of dna evidence, text messages, cell phone towers and ballistics etc they used his songs/videos as evidence. It was used to prove the motive for shooting dude was he was from a rival gang.

Which one? Them lil ****** up there wilding

 

[Present]

You need to do more research on free speech.

If you use your social media in a way your company doesn't deem fit, can you scream free speech?

Seriously? You just built a whole strawman...

...and "I need to do more research"

 

[ahat]

Which one? Them lil ****** up there wilding

Heartless G. Hes in his 30s now, this was like 10+ yrs ago.

 

[tr1ll]

I think a lot of the people saying “free speech” are missing the fact that there’s an investigation FIRST. They’re not just pulling up folks on Spotify and bring up charges without any connection to anything. That would be problematic. That would be an infringement on rights, but that’s not what’s happening. They already have exhibit A,B and D, then here comes Foolio with exhibit C on a mixtape.

 

[Present]

A rapper here is serving life because he killed a dude from a rival gang. On top of dna evidence, text messages, cell phone towers and ballistics etc they used his songs/videos as evidence. It was used to prove the motive for shooting dude was he was from a rival gang.

That'd be the point here...

If a DA has "dna evidence, text messages, cell phone towers and ballistics" then why sully the case and attack free speech with character assignation / jury bias?

If you cant convict a criminal without becoming one then what's the point?

Its Unconstitutional Fam.

 

[Present]

I think a lot of the people saying “free speech” are missing the fact that there’s an investigation FIRST. They’re not just pulling up folks on Spotify and bring up charges without any connection to anything. That would be problematic. That would be an infringement on rights, but that’s not what’s happening. They already have exhibit A,B and D, then here comes Foolio with exhibit C on a mixtape.

For the folks in the back...

"New Jersey v. Skinner case. In 2014, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the appeal of a man named Vonte Skinner. Skinner's rap lyrics were admitted at his trial for attempted murder and related charges. The defendant wrote the lyrics years before the shooting occurred. After hearing the lyrics, along with the other evidence against the defendant, the jury convicted him. An appellate court ruled that the lyrics were highly prejudicial and should not have been admitted; the State of New Jersey then appealed, but the state supreme court agreed that the verses never should have come into evidence."

 

[gry60]

At the end of the day its artistic expression.

Free Speech.

There's a reason these folks are only doing this to rappers.

Boils down to character assassination / jury bias.

A Court of Law should have a higher standard than a Court of Public Opinions.

When a DA / Prosecutor is giving "free legal advice" its most likely at the cost of your Constitutional rights.

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech.

 

[VARNELL HILL]

For the folks in the back...

"New Jersey v. Skinner case. In 2014, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the appeal of a man named Vonte Skinner. Skinner's rap lyrics were admitted at his trial for attempted murder and related charges. The defendant wrote the lyrics years before the shooting occurred. After hearing the lyrics, along with the other evidence against the defendant, the jury convicted him. An appellate court ruled that the lyrics were highly prejudicial and should not have been admitted; the State of New Jersey then appealed, but the state supreme court agreed that the verses never should have come into evidence."

You probably should read more into the details about this.

A cop found WRITTEN LYRICS in a notebook during an arrest. He didn't shoot a *****, go into the booth and rap about it in explicit detail, and release it for public consumption. The lyrics also did not contain any names, locations, etc. It was ridiculous from the jump. There's also 2 initial eyewitnesses who fingered him and then changed their stories multiple times. This is NOTHING like the recent examples being discussed. You should probably find a better case to build your argument on cause this one ain't it.

Lil Draco rapping about shooting AFG Glizzy's mama's house up w/ a switch...and 3 days later AFG's Glizzy mama's house gets shot up with a switch is more along the lines of what's being discussed.

 

[tr1ll]

For the folks in the back...

"New Jersey v. Skinner case. In 2014, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the appeal of a man named Vonte Skinner. Skinner's rap lyrics were admitted at his trial for attempted murder and related charges. The defendant wrote the lyrics years before the shooting occurred. After hearing the lyrics, along with the other evidence against the defendant, the jury convicted him. An appellate court ruled that the lyrics were highly prejudicial and should not have been admitted; the State of New Jersey then appealed, but the state supreme court agreed that the verses never should have come into evidence."

If you’re gonna “speak to the folks in the back” make sure you say everything where they can hear.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/08/05/the-new-jersey-supreme-court-rules-on-using-rap-lyrics-as-evidence-for-the-second-time/

[qoute]
What he wrote was violent but unconnected to the case, yet the state, in the words of the Supreme Court, “did not attempt to clarify or explain the lyrics in any way.” The jury eventually convicted Skinner of attempted murder, aggravated assault and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. But the conviction was reversed on appeal, with a panel finding that the use of the lyrics as evidence was “reversible error and necessitated a new trial.”[/quote]

[/quote]
The state disagreed, citing in part the only other time the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on rap lyrics as evidence. In that murder case, the court found that such lyrics could be admitted for a number of reasons, including that they shed light on the killer’s motive and portrayed “a desire to experience the thrill of killing,” they said in this latest opinion. But in this case, they found that the introduction of evidence could not pass all four parts of a test established in the state in 1992, known as the Cofield test. In explaining part of that analysis, the court noted the difficulty in proving that artistic expression equals action.[/quote]

Monday’s ruling will require a retrial, the court noted.

TL; DR?

Vonte Skinner’s Rap Lyrics Were Ruled Inadmissible by the New Jersey Supreme Court

On Monday, a unanimous Supreme Court decided Skinner's “highly prejudicial” rap lyrics should have been inadmissible in court because they “bore a high likelihood of poisoning the jury against the defendant” and ordered a retrial for Skinner. Maybe we...

www.vice.com