Jam Master Jay’s Alleged Killer Wants Charges Dismissed Or A Solo Trial

Karl Jordan Jr. cites quotes from a co-defendant who spoke about the slaying in a ‘Playboy’ article, saying that it could be damaging.

Jam Master Jay’s alleged shooter, Karl Jordan Jr., 38, is requesting his murder indictment to be dropped or replaced with a separate trial after being charged in the 2002 killing of the Run-DMC’s DJ.

According to Rolling Stone, a new motion filed on Monday (Apr. 11) in Brooklyn Federal Court, lawyers for the defendant are claiming that the government waited too long to charge him with the crime and having a joint trial could violate his right to cross-examine his co-defendant if damaging quotes in a Playboy article “The Last Days of Jam Master Jay” are brought up.

The Aug. 2020 indictment claims that Jordan Jr. broke into Jam Master Jay’s Queens studio on Oct. 30, 2002, and shot and killed the DJ as revenge for a cocaine deal gone bad.

Lawyers are now stating that it’s too late to obtain “beeper records” and other “objective evidence” to support his alibi because of the delay.

RELATED: Jam Master Jay Murder Trial Gets Starting Date

The co-defendant in question is Ronald Washington, 58, who allegedly provided cover during the shooting, and spoke about the case in a 2003 Playboy article.  Washington is quoted saying that he saw Jordan flee the murder scene after he heard three shots fired.

Washington also referred to Jordan and Jordan’s father as “Little Did” and “Big D” while speaking to Playboy while behind bars in 2003.

RELATED: Two Arrested For Murder Of Hip-Hop Pioneer Jam Master Jay

“I’m positive it was Little D. I looked him right in his face before he ran off,” Washington is quoted as telling writer Frank Owen, Rolling Stone notes. “Little D told me, ‘My pops wasn’t supposed to shoot Jay. That wasn’t supposed to happen,'” he said.

Jordan’s lawyers wrote in the motion stating:

“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.

“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.”

Washington’s lawyer Susan G. Kellman also issued a separate dismissal motion filed on Sunday (April 10):

“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.”

The judge on the case is expected to rule on the motions after the prosecutors file their opposition.

Latest News

Subscribe for BET Updates

Provide your email address to receive our newsletter.

By clicking subscribe, I agree to receive newsletters, marketing communications, updates, special offers (including partner offers), and other information from BET and the Paramount family of companies. For more information about our data practices, consult our Privacy Policy.