By Bill Forry
Managing Editor

The man who confessed to killing a 15 year-old bystander during a Geneva Avenue shootout in December 1993 is asking a state appeals court to overturn his conviction.

Charles Bogues, 35, admits to firing a gun at a group of adversaries during a running shootout, but insists that Louis D. Brown was not in his line of fire and that the stray bullet that hit and killed Brown that afternoon must have come from another person's weapon.

Tina Chery - Brown's mother who co-founded one of the city's leading anti-violence organizations in her son's name - says she supports Bogues's appeal for a new trial, even if she is not wholly convinced of his innocence. Chery, who has befriended Bogues's mother, Doris, says that she wants to see the proof that Bogues was the one responsible for her son's death &emdash; and hopes that further investigation of the case could lead to fresh charges against the others responsible for that day's gunplay.

"I'm not supporting [Charles Bogues]. It's about the justice process. I'm in support of the process. Whether the appeal goes through or not, he's still going to be coming out some day."

Brown, who was a member of an anti-gang violence youth group, was shot in the head while walking from his home off of Geneva Avenue to the Fields Corner MBTA station on Dec. 20, 1993. He was gunned down as two groups of men exchanged fire in a confrontation that remains murky in its details.

Bogues, who lived near the scene of the shooting was "a drug dealer who says he carried a gun for protection," according to Chery.

According to an account Bogues gave to a Boston Globe reporter last week from a state jailhouse in Shirley, he and a group of friends were fired on by an unknown gunman on Tonawanda St. Two in his group were felled by bullets as they ran toward Geneva Ave. Bogues told the Globe he returned fire at a man who was firing at him from an alleyway on Tonawanda.

Bogues was named as a suspect in 1997 after he was arrested in a separate federal investigation for allegedly selling illegal firearms to an undercover agent. He pled guilty to the Brown homicide as part of a deal with Suffolk county prosecutors that allowed him to avoid the federal charges, which could have resulted in as many as 15 additional years in prison, according to the Globe report. Under the terms of his second-degree murder sentence, Bogues is eligible for parole in 2012.

This week, Tina Chery said that she never approved of that plea deal, in part because she wanted more details about the shootout to come to light in court, something she says could have led to further arrests in the case.

"It wasn't OK with me," Chery said. "I discussed [the plea bargain] with prosecutors. But they weren't looking for my approval, just my blessing."

Chery says she has never been allowed to view the contents of the state's case against Bogues because the investigation of the Dec. 20, 1993 incident is still considered an open matter.

Jake Wark, a spokesperson for Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley, told the Reporter that the case was never "fully closed."

"The investigation into Louis D. Brown's fatal shooting was never fully closed and if additional evidence is developed, we will look very carefully at it," said Wark. Conley's office, however, stands by the conviction of Bogues.

"The defendant forfeited his right to appeal when he pleaded guilty to murder," Wark said. "We did not oppose any of the evidentiary hearings in his case and we're confident the conviction will withstand the scrutiny of an appeals court."

Bogues's attorney filed a brief to the appeals court on Oct. 25. Conley's office is required to file its own brief on the case by Nov. 26.

The centerpiece of Bogues's appeal centers on the ballistics evidence gathered at the crime scene. While he acknowledges that he fired a .45 caliber handgun on Tonawanda that afternoon, he claims that the bullet could not have hit Brown, who he says was fatally wounded around the corner on Geneva. Bogues claims that investigators in 1997 told him he was the only person who fired that particular caliber of bullet during the exchange. However, an expert hired to review the case by Bogues's present attorney indicates that a bullet and casings from a second .45 caliber gun were found at the crime scene.

The issue of the ballistics evidence gives Chery pause as well.

"He confessed and that was the big piece," Chery said. "But I was never allowed to see the file. I'm looking for someone to sit down with me and outline what happened. I want the privilege of looking at the report."

Chery says she wants Bogues held responsible for his role in the shootout - and for whatever other crimes he has been accused of - but is uncomfortable with the idea that the real killer of her son could remain free. She is also upset that no other charges have been brought against anyone else involved in the shootout and that investigators did not dig deeper to find out where the men involved acquired the firearms that were used.

"When we pick up a young person on a gun charge, we often put them right back out there and don't even follow the gun. The cops and the D.A., they have good intentions. But this has to be community driven. We have to insist that the source of the guns be found and prosecuted."

Chery says that the case points to many larger issues about the justice system and ongoing efforts to curb gun violence in the city.

"I live in this community," Chery said. "My child could have been on the other end of that gun, not because of how I raised him, but because many of our kids are carrying guns. Why are they carrying guns! If it was me, I'd want my community to rally to me. We're losing at both ends of the gun."

Chery and Doris Bogues first met through a mutual acquaintance in 2003 and the two have maintained a relationship with her since that time. Bogues has participated in some of the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute's efforts to jointly organize parents of murder victims and perpetrators and use them as tools in reducing violent crime locally.

Mrs. Bogues, who has been instructed by her son's lawyer not to discuss the specifics of the case with the press, says she too wants the full story of what happened in 1993 to come out.

"The ones who were there and were involved were not asked under oath to tell anything," Bogues said. "There were lots of people there that day."

"It's not really about [Charles Bogues]," says Chery. "It's about us as mothers. I admire [Doris Bogues]. And I have to ask myself, what if this was me? How do we as a community put our arms around her. She's in pain. She's dealing with the shame.

"We don't breed animals. So many of the women I meet whose sons are killers are church going people, they work for the city or the state, they are taxpayers. We're trying. But, we have to ask ourselves, how in God's name did we allow this to happen?"

Chery, who frequently works closely with Boston Police and prosecutors from the District Attorney's office through her work as a victim advocate, acknowledges that going public with her concerns about the case has been awkward.

"It's difficult," Chery said. "It's just unfortunate that it's me. But I think it can actually strengthen the relationship.

"This is both personal and its professional," she said. "As survivors, we often don't know what's going on. We're not educated about the process. Who do we go to - as survivors - when we're not happy with the outcome?"

"I know I'm not going to hear I'm sorry [from Bogues], because he had already said that he did not do it. But this neighborhood hasn't changed. If anything, the kids involved just keep getting younger. I want to know what he is going to do to help," said Chery.