Jam Master Jay’s alleged killer, Karl Jordan Jr. has requested that his case be thrown out or that he goes to trial separately.
Rolling Stone reports that a new motion was filed on Monday (Apr.11) in Brooklyn Federal Court. The motion claims that the government waited too long to charge Jordan with the crime and believes that having a joint trial would violate his right to cross-examination.
It also claims that Jordan’s co-defendant said some things in a Playboy article “The Last Days of Jam Master Jay” that could damage the case.
“It is anticipated that the government will seek to use Washington’s statements to prove its case against both men. There is no question that the statement by Washington accusing Mr. Jordan of being present at the scene of the murder incriminates Mr. Jordan, the non-declarant which necessitates severance,” Jordan’s lawyers wrote in the motion.
They added, “Additionally, the statement by Washington is testimonial in nature, and without an opportunity to cross-examine Washington, a joint trial and the admission of this statement clearly violates Mr. Jordan’s Sixth Amendment right, which- at a minimum- necessitates its exclusion.”
The indictment that was released in August 2020 states that Jordan Jr. broke into Jam Master Jay’s studio in Queens on October 30, 2002, where he fatally shot the legendary DJ over a bad drug deal.
Jordan Jr’s co-defendant, Ronald Washington, allegedly gave insight into the crime in the aforementioned Playboy article in 2003, where he refers to Jordan and Jordan Jr. as “Big D” and “Little D”.
“I’m positive it was Little D. I looked him right in his face before he ran off,” Washington said in the article. “Little D told me, ‘My pops wasn’t supposed to shoot Jay. That wasn’t supposed to happen,” he said.
Washington’s lawyer also wrote a separate motion to have the case dismissed. Susan G. Kellman wrote, “The government has known about the crime since 2002 and has been convinced that Mr. Washington committed the murder since at least 2006. This uniquely long pre-indictment delay violates fundamental conceptions of justice and due process.”
A judge is set to rule on these motions once prosecutors file their oppositions.