The Protection of Michael D. Evans #2

A second armed robbery of the Check Advance occurred on July 12, 2010.  According to police, the perpetrator committed the crime with Evans’ car, with clothing found in Evans’ residence, and leaving behind paperwork connected to Evans’ woman’s employment.  In addition, Evans was seen outside of the robbed establishment shortly before the crime.  Evans initially falsely claimed he was out of town on the day in question.  Given the above evidence, why would Evans not be charged for this crime?

Another individual was charged with the crime in large part because Evans claimed this individual had committed the crime, and because the police, and Detective Sharpe in particular, claimed that Evans had a confirmed alibi for the particular time that the crime was committed.

Despite numerous court orders that evidence be turned over by the Sun Prairie Police Department, evidence was not turned over.  Explanation after explanation would be provided, almost always proven not accurate, and almost always provided by Detective Sharpe.  After considerable time had elapsed, an evidentiary hearing was held with Detective Sharpe forced to testify.  Luckily, the eventual result of Detective Sharpe’s testimony was the charges being dismissed against the person who was prosecuted in place of Evans.  This was not the intentional result of Detective Sharpe’s testimony; however, Sharpe can take credit because it was his blatant perjury that led to it.  On multiple matters, Detective Sharpe testified in a fashion that was blatantly untrue.  The most compelling being the following.

Detective Sharpe, as shown in the attached transcript pages, (Attachment #55) testified that at the time of the crime (i.e. 10:30 – 11:45 a.m.) he confirmed that Michael D. Evans was attending his daughter’s graduation at a Sun Prairie school.  A dispute arose to whether the purported evidence behind Sharpe’s testimony should be produced.  The DA’s Office took the position that the evidence was not exculpatory, and therefore they did not have to produce any data behind Sharpe’s testimony.  Eventually, the DA’s Office would acquiesce to the evidence being provided.  This led, pursuant to a court order, to a police report by Detective Sharpe (Attachment #56).

A comparison of this report and Detective Sharpe’s testimony shows that, contrary to Detective Sharpe’s testimony, there was no evidence confirming Evans’ alibi.  In fact, Sharpe couldn’t even confirm that Evans had ever been to the school in question on the day in question.

« PreviousNext »