0

Change Of Lawyer In Manslaughter Appeal

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

A MAN has privately retained a lawyer to assist him in challenging his conviction and 18-year-sentence for manslaughter after his previous lawyer asked the Court of Appeal for leave to withdraw.

Kevano Musgrove, who was without a lawyer after Murrio Ducille was granted leave in February to withdraw, appeared in the Claughton House, Charlotte Street courtroom yesterday with lawyer Stanley Rolle.

In the earlier hearing, appellate court judges told Musgrove it would ask the Registrar to appoint him an attorney at the public’s expense. Musgrove told the court that he would also be seeking to retain another attorney before his next appearance before the appellate court on April 23.

However, his substantive hearing before Justices Anita Allen, Stanley John and Abdulai Conteh will not be heard until June 24.

In July 2012, the 28-year-old Highbury Park resident was sentenced to 18 years in prison for the February 25, 2010, shooting death of David Bowleg Jr.

Justice Indra Charles, who prepared a written ruling, said that while the convict had “committed an extremely grave offence”, a sentence of 18 years was deemed appropriate considering the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.

According to a confession statement presented by the prosecution during the trial, Musgrove admitted to shooting Bowleg, because he believed the deceased had put a bounty on his head.

Musgrove reportedly said he had watched the deceased pull up in the driveway of his Highbury Park home and enter the house through an unlocked door.

Having a gun on hand while waiting in a hallway, he shot Bowleg Jr in the shoulder before binding him with tape and dragging him back to the Honda Accord in which he had arrived.

After driving to Holiday Drive, Musgrove is alleged to have shot Bowleg again before calling someone to pick him up.

Justice Charles took into account the mitigation plea of then defence lawyer Mr Ducille, who had argued that his client was 24 at the time and was intruded upon in his home.

Had this not happened, the lawyer said, his client would not be before the court.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.