When Vonte Skinner was put on trial for his involvement in a 2005 shooting, he was likely unaware that he was doomed from the very beginning. His guilty verdict was decided the moment he wrote down rap lyrics, some years before said shooting took place and none of which mentioned the crime.
Skinner’s lyrics were violent and alluded to “street life,” making them almost unoriginal within the landscape of rap music, a genre notorious for shocking white parents and inciting the ire of conservative politicians due to its often graphic descriptions of the ghetto and crude, sexual language.
Whether he intended for rap to be an autobiographical creative outlet or simply artistic expression, Skinner certainly did not intend for his words to be read aloud to a jury as evidence in his 2008 trial.
The prosecution was poorly equipped; its only evidence other than 13 pages of lyrics was a slew of witnesses whose stories changed several times. Nonetheless, Skinner was found guilty of attempted murder and sentenced to 30 years in prison.
This case is only one of many in which rap lyrics (and in some, videos, as well) were used in court as evidence, but should lyrics be admitted as evidence? The Supreme Court of New Jersey will give an answer to this question in a few days — a result of an appellate court’s majority opinion that Skinner would likely not have been convicted had the jury remained unexposed to his lyrics.
A psychology study conducted in the late ‘90s set out to measure rap lyrics’ effect on jurors’ minds, and results determined jurors exposed to lyrics were significantly more likely to sway toward a guilty verdict than those who were not. This enduring bias, stereotypes about underprivileged men of color and jurors’ lack of awareness of the marketing strategies behind rap music represents a trifecta that rendered Skinner, for lack of better wording, shit out of luck.
However, it would be inaccurate to call Skinner, and others who have found themselves in the same predicament, a victim of circumstance. Skinner is, in reality, a victim of judicial malfeasance. Skinner’s lyrics should have remained unscrutinized; however abrasive, rap lyrics are a form of expression entitled to First Amendment protection.
The court’s failure to strike down lyrics’ admissibility is worrying on multiple levels. At the most basic level, it was a blatant violation of the Constitution, a document that ostensibly serves as the supreme law of the land and protects Americans’ basic freedoms. At a personal level, it posed a direct threat.
I’ve been writing for years and hope to do so professionally someday. Bouts of misguided creativity have led to some twisted writing and if those words were to ever be judged in a court setting, I suspect my fate would be equally as grim as Vonte Skinner’s.
Photo courtesy of: Spin
Reference: NY Times
