Jimmy Henchman Did Not Admit To Tupac Shooting, Lawyer Says

Attorney Gerald Shargel says claims that James Rosemond admitted to the 1994 shooting of Tupac are 'totally false.'

James "Jimmy Henchman" Rosemond was [article id="1686639"]convicted of drug-trafficking[/article], but his lawyer continues to shoot down reports that the one-time music mogul orchestrated the 1994 shooting of [article id="1665898"]Tupac Shakur[/article].

In a June 12 Village Voice article, journalist Chuck Phillips reported that Henchman admitted to the 'Pac shooting during a proffer session with the government in 2011. Proffer sessions allow suspects under investigation to confess to crimes under the agreement that the confession won't be used to prosecute them. These proffers are not a matter of public record, but after Rosemond's attorney Gerald Shargel referenced and refuted a March 2008 Los Angeles Times article by Phillips in which Henchman was reported to have orchestrated the Shakur shooting, the prosecution in turn referenced the proffer sessions in an effort to admit it as evidence. Shargel has consistently denied charges that Rosemond had anything to do with the shooting.

"If Mr. Shargel is going to argue that this was a fabricated article, it's the government's position that we can put in the defendant's own admission about that particular shooting," U.S. Attorney Soumya Dayananda is quoted as saying in the trial transcripts.

On Wednesday, Gerald Shargel spoke to MTV News in an effort to clear his client's name. "The statement by the prosecutor that Jimmy Rosemond had confessed or admitted to being involved in the 1994 shooting of Tupac is totally false," he said. "He categorically and emphatically denied that he had participation or role in that shooting and that was clear from the outset."

Shargel, who says he was present during the proffer sessions, believes that the prosecution misspoke in the court room. "Her statement was positively and absolutely false whether intentional, or not intentional. I think not intentional," he said. "She was not the prosecutor who sat in on any of the proffer sessions with Mr. Rosemond."

The judge would eventually rule in Shargel's favor and not admit the proffers into evidence, so any statement that Rosemond may have made during these sessions are still private. "Anyone looking at the statements or knows of the statements would know that [Rosemond] didn't make that admission and more than didn't make the admission, he categorically, absolutely, emphatically without any qualification whatsoever denied being a part of that," he said. "We stand by it to this day."

Latest News