Judge Overturns Conviction Of Accused Jam Master Jay Killer
It took nearly two decades for anyone to be arrested and tried for the murder of Run-DMC’s iconic DJ, Jam Master Jay. Now, almost two years after two men were convicted of his killing, one of them has had his conviction overturned after a judge decided the evidence of his motive to shoot and kill Jay, born Jason Mizell, wasn’t sufficient to justify his conviction.
According to CNN, on Friday, U.S. District Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall granted Karl Jordan Jr. an acquittal on the murder charges, despite denying Jordan’s attorneys’ request to dismiss the charges during trial. So, what has changed between now and when Jordan, the accused shooter, was convicted along with his alleged accomplice, Ronald Washington, last year? Well, apparently, Judge Hall just didn’t buy that Jordan would kill Jay as part of a drug deal gone bad. Yet, she didn’t feel the same way about Washington, who wasn’t even the one who pulled the trigger, according to witnesses.
From CNN:
An eyewitness testified that he saw Jordan shoot the DJ — his own godfather — in his Queens recording studio on October 30, 2002. A onetime tenant in Jordan’s home also testified that he overheard Jordan admit to the killing. But during more than 18 months of post-verdict presentations, Jordan’s lawyers argued that the evidence didn’t support prosecutors’ claims about his alleged motive: revenge for a failed drug deal.
Separately, the judge denied co-defendant Ronald Washington’s bid for an acquittal or a new trial. One of his lawyers, Susan Kellman, noted that he can pursue further appeals.
Washington and Jordan were tried together, and witnesses testified that Washington blocked the door during the shooting and ordered one of the DJ’s aides to get on the ground.
But the judge concluded that the evidence about a drug-beef motive was stronger against Washington than against Jordan. There was testimony that bad blood between Washington and a Baltimore-based drug seller torpedoed a potential six-figure cocaine deal involving Jordan, Washington and Mizell.
“A jury could reasonably infer that Washington was excluded from a potentially lucrative Baltimore deal and sought to retaliate against Mizell for his exclusion,” the judge wrote in the papers released Friday. But, she asked, “from what evidence, then, could the jury have reasonably inferred that Jordan sought to retaliate against Mizell for the failure of the Baltimore deal? There was none.”
OK — but could a jury “reasonably infer” that witnesses were wrong about what Jordan did or admitted to doing just because accounts of his motive might have been faulty? Since when does a perceived lack of motive trump witness testimony?
CNN noted that neither Jordan — who was reportedly stabbed in prison early this year — nor Washington testified at trial. Their attorneys had hinged their case around questioning the credibility of the witnesses. Still, that questioning doesn’t seem to be the main factor in the exoneration of Jordan, who hadn’t yet been sentenced for the murder. Also, whatever argument convinced the judge that Jordan had no motive to kill did not work when it came to Washington, whose lawyers questioned why he’d have any reason to kill an old friend who helped him financially, noting that Jay’s sister was even allowing him to sleep on her couch when he was down on his luck.
Meanwhile, a third man, Jay Bryant, was also charged with Jay’s murder in 2023, well after Jordan and Washington were arrested in 2020. Bryant has pleaded not guilty and is still awaiting trial.
SEE ALSO:
Jam Master Jay’s Murderer Stabbed In Prison
