Jam Master Jay trial: Prosecution describes 'brutal' shooting in closing remarks

The trial for Two men accused of murdering pioneer DJ Run-DMC in 2002 began their trial in court Tuesday as the prosecution made its closing arguments. Summing up the government's case over the course of two hours, prosecutor Artie McConnell denounced the “brutality,” “arrogance” and “audacity” of Jam Master Jay's murder.

Since January 29, a jury has heard testimony from 35 US government witnesses to argue that defendant Karl Jordan Jr. fatally shot the DJ, whose real name was Jason Mizell, in a Jamaican recording studio while defendant Ronald Washington stood guard. The motive, according to an indictment, was that Mizell, who had begun distributing drugs after Run-DMC's popularity waned, cut Washington out of a deal in Baltimore. Prosecutors claimed they killed him in retaliation. Each defendant faces a minimum of 20 years in prison if convicted. (A third man, Jay Bryant, who was included in the indictment, will be tried later.)

Both defendants said Tuesday they would not take the witness stand themselves. Jordan's team offered no witnesses for his defense, while Washington's team presented only one, a memory expert. Without the jury present, one of Washington's attorneys, Ezra Spilke, spoke on behalf of both defendants asking for acquittal. The defense is expected to give its closing arguments on Wednesday.

McConnell reiterated how witnesses in the case included eyewitnesses, law enforcement, experts, conspirators and drug dealers. “It's about greed, money and jealousy,” he said. “It is the actions of two men, Carl Jordan Jr. and Ronald Washington, that the evidence has proven to be the killers.” He also described them as Mizell's “executioners”.

He recounted the timeline of October 30, 2002, the day Mizell was shot and killed. Citing a patchwork of witness statements, he described how Mizell and his friend, Uriel “Tony” Rincon, were playing video games at a recording studio in Jamaica, Queens, about 7 p.m.

McConnell alleged that Bryant entered the building directly behind a woman who worked for Mizell's JMJ Records and went to the back to drop off the defendants, who shot and killed Mizell. He claimed the defendants planned the shooting, knowing how the studio was set up with cameras that only look in certain directions. they didn't know, he said, that the security cameras weren't recording. “Karl Jordan walks into the studio first,” McConnell said. “It was noticed and recognized by Tony. … After a brief salute, Carl Jordan Jr. pulls out a .40-caliber semi-automatic pistol and fires away.” The shots were “inches away” from Mizell.

McConnell then turned his focus to the motive, which he said was the drug conspiracy. He recounted the testimony of a witness, Eric “Shake” James, who claimed Jordan and Washington were part of Mizell's drug conspiracy, which was to move 10 kilograms of coke to Baltimore. Because a merchant named Ralph Mullgrav refused to cooperate with Washington, McConnell said that Washington and Jordan wanted revenge. He claimed that by killing Mizell, they hoped to be part of the drug conspiracy.

Elsewhere in his closing remarks, he argued that the defense would focus on inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts. He believed, however, that they lied to the police because they were scared, something they had said under oath. But while on the stand for this trial, McConnell said the witnesses had no reason to lie. “If it was [both] wrong, what are the chances of them making the same mistake [in identifying the two same defendants as the shooters]?” he guessed.

He also repeated statements made by the defendants allegedly involved themselves. Among other claims, he recounted how Washington, at one point, popped his head into a local barber shop and asked them to say he'd been there all day to create an alibi for himself. Another man, Cherubin Bastien, had testified that Jordan had threatened a woman that he would “do to her like Jay did”.

“Ladies and gentlemen, this ends here in this courtroom with your verdict,” he said at the end of his remarks. “People knew him as Run-DMC's Jam Master Jay, but before that he was Jason Mizell, father, son… He was a good man, a generous man, a nice man, a man who is still missed. There were people who cared about him. … Twenty years is a long time to wait for justice. Twenty years is enough. Don't let it go on another minute and find Karl Jordan Jr. and Ronald Washington guilty as charged, because they are guilty.” Throughout the depositions, both defendants stared, following the prosecutor's every word.

Memory was also a focus of discussion earlier Tuesday. The Washington team presented an expert witness, Dr. Geoffrey Loftus, a professor emeritus at the University of Washington in Seattle who specialized in human perception. Loftus, who when asked if he was going to be paid to testify said, “I hope so, yes,” used an easel to erase how memory works for the jury.

Spilke, on behalf of Washington, hoped that Dr. Loftus would show the jury how “post-event information” – things like newspaper articles, documentaries and hearsay – could influence and change the way people remember traumatic events. But Judge LaShann DeAarcy Hall ruled out questions about the government's witnesses, specifically eyewitnesses to the killing, because defense attorneys did not specifically ask them where or when they had seen interviews with other witnesses about Mizell's murder.

Dr. Loftus' subsequent testimony was wide-ranging, but he argued that after-the-fact information could lead witnesses to lose the ability to distinguish between what they remember firsthand and what they encountered after the event. He added that some post-event information can be questionable (reliable or unreliable) and that factors that could reduce a witness's recollection include the duration of an event (in the case of the shooting, it was reportedly about 10 seconds), whether the witness was paying attention to “what is important” and a high degree of stress.

For the defense, he said 10 seconds might not be enough for a witness – apparently referring to High but not naming her – to identify someone holding a gun to her head, as she would have been under duress. Under cross-examination, however, prosecutor Miranda Gonzalez used her husband as an example and asked if Dr. Loftus thought she could recognize her husband pointing the gun at her in good lighting, within and within five feet of her. He said yes. (High, who claimed that Washington pointed a gun at her and told her to “get down,” testified that she had known Washington since childhood.)

Defendants Jordan, wearing a maroon vest, and Washington, in a gray suit, looked on with interest throughout the interrogation.

Closing arguments will continue Wednesday, with U.S. attorneys making rebuttals before the jury deliberates on the verdict.