Brooklyn prosecutors in upcoming Jam Master Jay murder trial ask for one trial, two juries

The feds are asking for a novel approach to the upcoming Jam Master Jay murder trial in Brooklyn — one trial, but two separate juries.

The request comes after a Brooklyn Federal Court judge ordered a separate trial for one of the three suspects in the Run-DMC icon’s 2002 murder in his Queens recording studio.

Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall granted suspect Jay Bryant’s request to sever his trial from his co-defendants Ronald “Tinard” Washington and Karl Jordan Jr. ruling earlier this month.

Prosecutors believe Jordan to be the shooter, even though court documents allege that Bryant bragged about pulling the trigger to an unnamed third party.

The judge was particularly concerned that dueling witnesses called by Jordan and Bryant’s defense lawyers would present jurors with the choice of finding one of them guilty to find the other innocent.

Rather than hold two trials, prosecutors are now asking for a “bifurcated trial” — an approach that hasn’t been used before in recent history in Brooklyn Federal Court, according to a source with knowledge of the case.

The judge has to rule on whether she’ll allow the arrangement, or whether Bryant will get a separate trial entirely.

Prosecutors have said that Washington and Jordan wanted revenge on Jay, real name Jason Mizell, for cutting them out of a 10-kilo cocaine deal.

Under the plan proposed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Artie McConnell, one jury would sit for opening and closing arguments against Jordan and Washington, while the second jury would do the same in Bryant’s case. The juries would be kept in separate jury rooms, and would be instructed not to mingle with each other.

Both juries would be present in the courtroom while the government presents its case against all three men, but Jordan and Washington would present their defense to one jury, and Bryant would present his to the other.

The separate juries would hear separate testimony and cross-examinations of defense witnesses.

Both juries would hear eyewitness testimony from the day of the murder, as well as evidence of the drug trafficking operation and of Bryant’s DNA being found on an article of clothing left behind, McConnell wrote.

The government expects to call 40 witnesses to testify, and according to McConnell, “A single trial will avoid the need for the same witnesses to testify at two trials regarding the same subject matter, and therefore will yield substantial savings in judicial resources by avoiding two lengthy, and nearly identical, trials.

“Several of the witnesses expected to testify reside out of state and have expressed fear for their
safety. Others have expressed an unwillingness to testify and are expected to be uncooperative,” the prosecutor added.

Bryant’s and Washington’s lawyers did not immediately return messages seeking comment, and Jordan’s legal team declined comment.

Though unusual, multiple juries are not unheard of, and were used with some regularity in cases handled by former Brooklyn D.A. Charles J. Hynes. The state Court of Appeals ruled in 1989 that multiple juries were not “inherently prejudicial,” though they should be used sparingly.

Last year, two juries in Manhattan Supreme Court heard the trial of Samuel Whatts and Ana Velazquez, who were both charged in the 2016 home invasion robbery-murder of Philip Erby. Both were convicted.

In 2005, two tandem juries in Brooklyn reviewed the evidence against John Giuca and Antonio Russo in the fatal shooting of Fairfield University football player Mark Fisher in Prospect Park South.

Both juries came back with guilty verdicts, though Giuca has tried in vain to overthrow his conviction, arguing that the prosecution never revealed it had a 2005 recording of a Rikers inmate saying Russo bragged about doing the murder on his own, and that Giuca refused to dispose of the gun.

Lawyer Mark Bederow, who handled Giuca’s appeal, described dual verdicts as “a huge disadvantage for the defense, because evidence slips in and slips out.”

“Everyone understands the idea of not wanting to have witnesses come back again and again, but there’s a potential for harm,” he said. “Historically, these were done in Brooklyn more than anywhere else in that era. They generally don’t work out favorably for the defense.”