A Word from Jason Goldman
In June 2023, 20-year-old Jordan Williams found himself at the center of a fierce discussion about self-defense, public safety, and justice in New York City. Riding on a Brooklyn J train, Williams and his girlfriend were confronted by Devictor Ouedraogo, a 36-year-old man who was harassing various passengers and then assaulted both Mr. Williams and his girlfriend.
In the chaos that followed, Mr. Williams, in an effort to protect himself and others, stabbed Ouedraogo once in the leg, who later died from his wounds. Arrested and charged with manslaughter and criminal possession of a weapon, his case sparked comparisons with other high-profile subway incidents and broader debates over when deadly force is justified on the city’s transit system.
Only hours after the incident, my office was contacted through a mutual acquaintance and we were asked to defend Mr. Williams. I was immediately drawn to the matter as it was a flashpoint in the conversation about personal safety, the right to defend oneself, and how justice is applied in the most frightening moments New Yorkers can face underground.
These are the cases that our office has prided itself on - ones that go beyond the four corners of the file and leave a lasting impact on society.
The Arrest and Arraignment
Mr. Williams was charged with manslaughter and other related charges. As mentioned, our office was contacted only hours after the incident and before Mr. Williams was even arraigned by a Judge. We moved quickly in our preparation for a detailed, thorough and passionate bail argument. I knew that if Mr. Williams was able to fight this case alongside our office (from the outside, as opposed to from Rikers), that we would be in that much better of a position.
Very few, if any, criminal defendants in New York are released without any amount of monetary bail being set. Nonetheless, I took a shot with the Judge, arguing that this was a clear-cut self defense case, that Mr. Williams was a good kid from a good family and was somebody who had zero police contacts until that point. I urged the Court that Mr. Williams was not a flight risk nor a danger to society, and that putting him on Rikers would simply mean that he would languish there for months, if not years, before a trial.
The Judge, in her own words, “took a chance,” listened to our words, and released Mr. Williams on his own recognizance (without any monetary bail being posted). This was a significant first step in our defense. The matter was now set to be heard by a grand jury in Brooklyn, New York.
The Legal Challenge
At stake for Mr. Williams was liberty or life in prison. There is no in-between when you are charged with homicide, and our approach reflected the significance of what Mr. Williams was facing. The ultimate challenge was to convince a grand jury that Mr. Williams was justified when he acted in self-defense.
We needed the jury to not only hear a story but actually envision themselves within that subway car. If the grand jury could feel the chaos and understand just how quickly everything had unfolded, we knew we could succeed with having them agree that Mr. Williams simply acted in reasonable self-defense. He could not flee. He could not just sit there as his life was in danger.
And, most importantly, he did not go beyond what the statute contemplates. He did not stab the aggressor multiple times. He did not shoot the aggressor. Rather, Mr. Williams slashed the aggressor merely one time and then ran away to safety.
Our Defense Strategy
In the aftermath of the fatal stabbing, our legal defense centered squarely on a claim of self-defense, arguing that he acted to protect himself and his girlfriend after another passenger, Devictor Ouedraogo, physically assaulted them on a moving train. As the case awaited a grand jury, our office was well-aware that the public had an interest in the matter and that it would be important to present accurate facts as to what did and did not take place.
Media coverage reflected broader tensions about crime, self-defense, and how New York handles such incidents. Local outlets highlighted the district attorney’s statement that the investigation included multiple videos and witness interviews and that Williams’s actions could fall under New York’s self-defense law, which allows deadly force when one reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent imminent harm. Major press also drew comparisons to other high-profile subway cases, like that of Daniel Penny, especially debates around when it is legally and morally justified for passengers to intervene, shaping public perception of Williams’s case as part of a larger conversation about safety on public transit.
The most critical aspect of a “press” case is to conduct the most thorough investigation possible before making any statements. The last thing the defense wanted was to lose credibility or lose the narrative. To that end, we did not sit back and accept one-sided facts. We did not sit back and wait for the government to trickle out evidence to the defense. Rather, we began our own investigation. We found out who else was in that subway car and took statements from them immediately. Perhaps most importantly, we got our hands on the only video in existence which captured parts of the incident.
As the matter made its way through the grand jury, our office filed important documents with the jury itself, asking them to call certain witnesses and request to view certain evidence. This strategy was imperative to our later success. Many times, defendants and defense counsel do not take full advantage of the grand jury process and subpoena power at this stage. And by sitting back, many defendants are then indicted. We did the opposite by essentially putting on a trial at this early stage.
To that end, the final piece of the puzzle was to have Mr. Williams himself testify. This is always a risky move and one that defense lawyers rarely employ. Indeed, at the grand jury, defense counsel cannot speak, cannot examine their own witness and cannot make an opening statement or closing argument. Therefore, we had to prepare Mr. Williams for cross-examination and to calmly and accurately relay to the grand jury as to what took place. Over the course of an hour, he did just that.
The Decision
A few days after his testimony and at the close of the grand jury, our office received a big phone-call. The district attorney’s office notified us that all charges had been declined by the grand jury. Mr. Williams was a free man - his case was dropped. He did not spend a single day in Rikers. He was able to put the pieces of his life back together following this traumatizing experience.