N.J. Supreme Court holds session with newly appointed justice

The New Jersey Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trenton last year.

(Patti Sapone/The Star-Ledger)

TRENTON — Rap lyrics filled with visceral images of gang violence, such as killings and rapes, can't be used as evidence of guilt unless they have a "strong nexus" to the crime being charged, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In a 6-0 ruling, the high court ordered a new trial for Vonte Skinner, who was convicted of shooting and attempting to murder a drug dealer, Lamont Peterson, in the Burlington County township of Willingboro in 2005.

Notebooks filled with Skinner's dark musical writings — depicting gang shootings, knifings and rapes, "bloodshed, death, maiming, and dismemberment" — were read at length to the jury that convicted Skinner and likely doomed his chances of a fair trial, the Supreme Court said.

One of the lyrics read, "I’m the (racial epithet) to drive-by and tear your block up, leave you, your homey and neighbors shot up, chest, shots will have you spittin’ blood clots up."

But some of those violent rhymes were penned before the shooting, and the Supreme Court said using them as evidence "risked poisoning the jury" because "there is an utter absence of clear and convincing evidence" that Skinner actually committed the gun violence and sexual assaults he was rapping about.

"One would not presume that Bob Marley, who wrote the well-known song ‘I Shot the Sheriff,’ actually shot a sheriff, or that Edgar Allan Poe buried a man beneath his floorboards, as depicted in his short story ‘The Tell-Tale Heart,’ simply because of their respective artistic endeavors on those subjects," Justice Jaynee LaVecchia wrote for the court.

When the lyrics match the circumstances of a given crime or mention the victim by name, they could, possibly, be used as evidence at trial, LaVecchia wrote. But in Skinner’s case, none of the lyrics were on point, the court found.

Skinner's public defender and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey said the ruling bolstered the freedom of artistic expression.

"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," said Skinner’s public defender, Jason Coe. "We’re happy that, as a result, Mr. Skinner will receive a fair trial."

The state Attorney General’s Office said it disagreed with the ruling because Skinner was rapping about being a gang "enforcer," which was relevant to the case.

"While we certainly understand and respect the Supreme Court’s ruling, we respectfully disagree on this issue," Lee Moore, a spokesman for acting Attorney General John Hoffman, said. "The lyrics clearly indicated (Skinner’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."

Burlington County prosecutors said they were prepared to go back to court to try to reinstate Skinner’s conviction on other evidence.

It will be the third trial for Skinner — who at one point wrote his lyrics in connection with a rap music label — on charges that he attempted to murder Peterson, who ended up paralyzed after being shot seven times. A jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on Skinner the first time. The Supreme Court and an appellate court have now thrown out his conviction in the second trial.

Skinner argues that another man, Joseph Ward, shot Peterson instead. In the meantime, Burlington County officials said Skinner remains in jail on $250,850 bail.

"We appreciate the court’s direction going forward on the use of such lyrics," said Burlington County Prosecutor Robert D. Bernardi. "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."

Justice LaVecchia wrote that in future cases, trial judges should consider whether other evidence serves the same purpose as any rap lyrics written by a suspect. 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."

Ezra Rosenberg, a lawyer at the Dechert firm who argued in favor of Skinner on behalf of the ACLU’s state chapter, said that the court was right to toss out the rap lyrics and that presenting any creative work as criminal evidence — without its proper context — is a bad way to prosecute crimes.

"From cave paintings to Johnny Cash to Game of Thrones, the history of art reflects all elements of society, including violent ones," Rosenberg said. "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."

Courts in Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, South Carolina and Washington have issued similar rulings rejecting some rap lyrics or writings that were unrelated to the crimes being charged, LaVecchia wrote.

Star-Ledger staff writer Brent Johnson contributed to this report.

MORE POLITICS

FOLLOW STAR-LEDGER POLITICS: TWITTER • FACEBOOK • GOOGLE+