ILNews

Inside the Criminal Case: Can your lyrics be used against you in court?

James J. Bell , K. Michael Gaerte
August 27, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Inside CC Bell GaerteI shot a man in Reno
Just to watch him die
–“Folsom Prison Blues,” Johnny Cash



It is common knowledge that what you say can and will be used against you. But what about what you sing or intend to sing? What if what you said was put to a (probably bad) beat in the background? Can lyrics you’ve written, performed or even expressed admiration for, be used against you in your criminal trial? Put in context, could the lyrics from “Folsom Prison Blues” have been used against Johnny Cash if he was ever really charged with shooting someone? In that hypothetical case, could a prosecutor have slapped an exhibit sticker on those lyrics and used those lyrics to make the “Man in Black” hang his head and cry?

Courts have addressed this issue. As a starting point, the decisions that have addressed this issue have done so based solely on evidentiary grounds. Although freedom of speech advocates have pushed the argument that the First Amendment mandates an additional review of a defendant’s artistic expressions, appellate courts addressing this issue have declined the opportunity to do so. See Brief of Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, New Jersey v. Skinner, https://www.aclu-nj.org/download_file/view_inline/1175/947/.

While the Rules of Evidence have largely remained the same over the past several years, the availability of information about a defendant’s musical propensities has not. With the proliferation of social media and the increased publication of an individual’s personal preferences, this is an area that will surely see increased attention in courtrooms across the county in the future. While some recent caselaw has provided some clarity on the evidentiary issues, it still seems clear that a firm consensus has not developed in Indiana or nationally.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed a defendant’s attempted murder conviction and remanded the case for retrial because the trial court had admitted violent rap lyrics the defendant had written prior to the shooting. New Jersey v. Skinner, 2014 N.J. Lexis 803 (N.J. 2014). Skinner was allegedly involved in shooting a rival drug dealer over a money dispute. Id. at 2. When he was arrested, police discovered three notebooks filled with rap lyrics written by Skinner. Id.

Skinner, who may or may not be the next William Shakespeare or Bob Dylan of his era, had penned lyrics such as:

Go ahead and play hard. I’ll have you in front of heaven prayin’ to God, body parts displaying the scars, puncture wounds and bones blown apart, showin’ your heart full of black marks, thinkin’ you already been through hell, well, here’s the best part. You tried to lay me down with you and your dogs until the guns barked. Your last sight you saw was the gun spark, nothin’ but pure dark, like Bacardi.

Without going into greater detail, the notebooks contained other material which “included graphic depictions of violence, bloodshed, death, maiming and dismemberment.” Id. at 18.

The state of New Jersey sought to admit the lyrics, not as direct evidence of the crime with which Skinner was charged but rather to prove Skinner’s motive and intent pursuant to Evidentiary Rule 404(b). Id. at 8. Over Skinner’s timely objection, the trial court determined that the lyrics were admissible. Id. at 2. However, on appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the admission of the lyrics was highly prejudicial and bore little evidentiary value and reversed his conviction. Id. at 5. The court found that Rule 404(b)’s “safeguard against propensity evidence” was designed specifically to prevent such material from unduly prejudicing a jury against a defendant. Id. at 39. Focusing in on the fact that Skinner’s lyrics bore little similarity to the actual shooting at issue, the court determined that admitting the lyrics at Skinner’s trial necessitated a new trial. Id. at 52.

However, when such lyrics reflect details of the crime itself, the analysis can change substantially. In Bryant v. State, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed this very issue. 802 N.E.2d 486 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Arthur Bryant was convicted of, among other things, the murder of his stepmother. Id. at 492. Prior to the murder, Bryant had either authored or plagiarized rap lyrics that contained a line about pulling a body “out (sic) the trunk of my car.” Id. at 498. Police had located Bryant’s stepmother’s body from the trunk of the car Bryant had been driving for several days. Id. Like Skinner, the Bryant court addressed the issue of whether admitting the lyrics violated Evidence Rule 404(b). Ultimately, the appellate court concluded that, because Bryant’s intent to kill was at issue in his trial, he was not unfairly prejudiced when the lyrics were admitted. Id. at 499.

So whether lyrics are admissible in court may depend upon how closely the lyrics mirror the crime alleged. Put another way, if Johnny Cash had ever faced a charge of shooting a man, the admissibility of his lyrics would depend largely on where he shot the man and for what reason. If he had ever shot a man in Reno for the purpose of watching him die, “Folsom Prison Blues” would not only be an American country classic, but also likely an admissible exhibit at trial.•

__________

James J. Bell and K. Michael Gaerte are attorneys with Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP. They assist lawyers and judges with professional liability and legal ethics issues. They also practice in criminal defense and are regular speakers on criminal defense and ethics topics. They can be reached at jbell@bgdlegal.com or mgaerte@bgdlegal.com. The opinions expressed are those of the authors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT