⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The 2002 killing of Jam Master Jay returns to court, but this appeal is not simply about who fired the gun. Jason Mizell, the hip-hop deejay, was shot in his Queens recording studio. His godson Karl Jordan and longtime friend Ronald Washington were tried together. The prosecution connected the killing to a proposed cocaine operation in Baltimore and Washington's exclusion from that deal. A jury convicted both men of drug-related and firearm-related murder in 2024. In December 2025, Judge Hall set aside Jordan's two convictions for insufficient evidence. The government now asks the Second Circuit to reinstate the jury's verdict. This is the merits appeal, not the earlier hearing on Jordan's bail. The acquittal was not a ruling that no reasonable jury could identify Jordan as the shooter. Hall found evidence of his participation in a drug conspiracy, but not enough connecting his involvement in the killing to the drug operation. That distinction is central. Under Rule Twenty-Nine, a judge may set aside a guilty verdict when the evidence cannot support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. This tests legal sufficiency, not which witnesses the judge prefers. The court must credit reasonable inferences favoring the prosecution, but cannot fill a missing element with speculation. Section Eight Forty-Eight requires a substantive connection between the intentional killing and qualifying drug activity. A drug-related motive can supply that connection; it need not be the only motive. The companion firearm charge also requires a link to the underlying drug crime. Using a gun in a killing does not, by itself, prove that link. Miranda Gonzalez, an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York, will argue first for the government. She will rely on the timing, Jordan's relationship with Washington, and the coordinated killing. She will also invoke aiding and abetting: responsibility for intentionally helping another person commit a crime. John Diaz will defend the acquittal, arguing that the government has not proved Jordan knew or shared Washington's drug-related purpose. Listen for the line between a reasonable inference and a speculative leap.

United States v. Karl Jordan Jr. (No. 26-16) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 20, 2026.