2 music executives ask cut in bonds

• By JOE GYAN JR.
• Advocate staff writer
• Published: Nov 12, 2009 - Page: 5B

• Print
• Email
• Save
• Reprints
• Twitter
• Share

• Del.icio.us
• Digg
• Facebook
• Reddit
• 

Attorneys for two local rap music executives accused of trying to kill a Baton Rouge rapper in 2005 say their clients have passed polygraph tests.

Lewis Unglesby, who represents Marcus Roach, is asking a state judge to reduce Roach’s $350,000 bond and ease other restrictions placed on him.

James Manasseh, who is defending fellow Trill Entertainment manager Melvin Vernell Jr., said Wednesday he intends to file a similar motion on Vernell’s behalf this week.

Unglesby contends the results of an Oct. 23 polygraph exam are a strong indication that the weight of the evidence against Roach is “minimal’’ if not “non-existent.’’

East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Hillar Moore III, who was out of town Wednesday and said he had not seen Unglesby’s motion, nevertheless stressed that he would have to question the polygraph.

“We have a very strong case,’’ he added without elaborating.

Roach and Vernell face multiple charges in the July 4, 2005, shooting of rapper Bruce “Beelow’’ Moore in front of Shop Smart Music and Fashion, a store he owned on North Sherwood Forest Drive.

Moore survived the shooting.

Roach and Vernell both posted $350,000 property bonds earlier this year and are being electronically monitored by ankle bracelets.

State District Judge Mike Erwin gave Vernell, of Baton Rouge, and Roach, of Prairieville, permission in September to move to Atlanta.

Prosecutors initially charged Roach and Vernell in September 2005 with attempted second-degree murder, armed robbery and illegal use of weapons in Moore’s shooting, but the charges were dropped a year later at the request of witnesses.

Prosecutors filed a new bill of information against the two men in May, charging them with attempted second-degree murder, illegal use of weapons, aggravated battery, armed robbery, aggravated assault with a firearm and possession of an illegal firearm by a convicted felon.

“We’re confident that the first decision to dismiss was correct,’’ Unglesby said Wednesday.