“Ambush” Delays DUI Cop’s Fate

Officer James Evarts got caught driving drunk while claiming to be out sick, failed to tell his department he was taking vacation days to serve jail time, denied having a prior DUI conviction, and is forbidden to speak with prosecutors, according to the city. Now he’s fighting to hang on to his job.

For now, after a dramatic termination hearing at police headquarters Thursday night, his fate remains up in the air.

The delayed decision followed a last-minute letter from New Haven State’s Attorney Michael Dearington dated Thursday. ​“Effective immediately,” Dearington wrote, Evarts many not enter any prosecutor’s office, and the state will refuse to consider any police-related documents he signs.

Evarts’ attorney, criminal defense lawyer Norm Pattis, called the letter an ​“ambush” on the 13-year veteran of the police force, and succeeded in putting the termination hearing on hold.

Pattis made the remark Thursday evening during a standing-room-only conference room on the third floor of 1 Union Ave., where the police commission held a special meeting to consider Evarts’ fate. While disciplinary hearings typically take place behind close doors, Evarts requested that it be open to the public. Over two dozen supporters, including his two daughters and a host of fellow cops, spilled out into the hallway to watch the tense, two-hour, quasi-judicial affair.

Observers had to swing open a double door to get a clear line of sight.

Thursday wasn’t the first time supporters have come to Evarts’ side to help him fight for his job.

His troubles began last July, when he allegedly called in sick and then got charged with drunken driving by Old Saybrook police.

Chief Limon called for him to be fired. But after his fellow officers rallied around him, the Board of Police Commissioners in October handed him only a six-month suspension. Evarts later bargained that down to a three-month suspension.

Now Limon is again seeking termination, this time based on five new charges. Read them here.

The latest charges came after a surprise development in February, when Chief Limon learned that Evarts had been sent to jail. Limon placed Evarts on administrative leave and launched an internal affairs investigation.

On behalf of the chief, attorney Floyd Dugas (pictured) presented the findings Thursday.

At Evarts’ termination hearing last October, Dugas said, Evarts led police commissioners to believe that Evarts would get no jail time, because it was his first offense.

Then, in February, Chief Limon got a phone call that one of his cops was incarcerated. It turned out prosecutors had caught Evarts in a ​“lie,” according to Dugas. When Evarts applied for a drug education program for his DUI, he was asked if he had ever been convicted of that offense.

“No,” Evarts said, under oath in court.

“It turns out that wasn’t a truthful statement,” Dugas charged.

Prosecutors discovered Evarts had been convicted of a DUI offense in 1993 in Plymouth, Conn., and was sent to a drug rehabilitation program. When prosecutors found out about the past conviction, they threatened him with a perjury charge but never carried out the threat. Dugas said Evarts struck a deal with the state in which he agreed to plead no lo contendere to the DUI charge in exchange for not being charged with perjury. 

Further, the IA probe found that Evarts failed to mention the past DUI when he applied for a job with the New Haven police department in 1997, four years after his arrest. The job application asked if he had ever been convicted ​“of anything other than a minor traffic violation.”

Evarts indicated he had not.

“He lied when he applied to this department. He lied in court about the facts of the arrest,” charged Dugas.

Pattis countered that his client is not a ​“liar,” but ​“inadvertently misstated” his criminal record. When Evarts applied to the department, he wasn’t sure if he had been convicted of a DUI, because, like many first-time offenders, he was granted a diversionary program to settle the charge.

Pattis said Evarts conducted his own background check when he applied to the police department, which showed no sign of the DUI. The police department ran three background checks of its own and did not come up with any past convictions, Pattis added.

Evarts mentioned the offense during his oral interview, Pattis claimed. He said the omission on the job application and in court amounted to an honest mistake.

“Why is he being singled out?” Pattis asked.

Sgt. John Wolcheski (pictured in foreground) sought to answer that question. Wolcheski, who was Evarts’ classmate in the police academy, carried out the internal affairs probe. After taking an oath to tell the truth, he sat across from his colleague Thursday and explained the charges he reached.

Wolcheski revealed that Evarts had taken vacation days to accommodate his jail sentence, yet failed to tell his department the real purpose of his time off. He didn’t turn in his gun; he asked a coworker to hold onto it for him.

Wolcheski concluded Evarts had been ​“untruthful and misleading” on his job application and in his statement in court, and ​“deceitful” regarding his vacation in jail. He found Evarts had violated internal police code five times, for making false statements, conduct ​“unbecoming of an officer,” failing to tell superiors of about a matter that ​“should properly come to the attention of the department,” and taking actions that injured the department’s morale.

In a fiery cross-examination, Pattis asked if Wolcheski ever investigated the city official who issued a press release announcing Evarts’ incarceration. That release injured the morale of the department, Pattis argued. Wolcheski said he had not investigated that aspect of the case.

Pattis pressed Wolcheski on whether Evarts had willfully misled anyone. He pointed out that first-time offenders often have their records wiped clean if they complete court-ordered rehabilitation programs. Was Wolcheski sure that Evarts knew he had to disclose his DUI conviction?

“Looking back on it in hindsight, he might not have been aware of it,” Wolcheski responded.

Pattis added that Evarts’ prior attorney, a fellow cop, appears to have given him poor advice on the latest DUI case.

Pattis carried on with the rigor of a criminal proceeding, repeating the question when the witness failed to answer it directly. Police commission Chair Rick Epstein, gavel in hand, broke up a few verbal spats between Pattis and Dugas, who maintained they are old friends.

“If he’s going to malign me, I’m not going to let him talk!” Pattis blurted out during one heated moment.

He also pressed Wolcheski on whether the department has an explicit policy of ​“When you’re incarcerated, call in.”

Wolcheski replied that police should know that a jail sentence is one of those matters that, according to police code, ​“should properly come to the attention of the department.”

After 45 minutes of grilling, Epstein allowed a quick break. Wolcheski leaned back in his chair in relief.

“You want a water?” asked a commissioner.

“I could use a vodka,” Wolcheski quipped.

Next on the stand was Chief Limon, who made his case for termination. He said the recommendation is based on Evarts’ criminal case ​“and the fact that he has been untruthful — not only in his appearance in court,” but in his job application, Limon said.

“I don’t believe he can work for this police department any longer,” Limon said. He cited Dearington’s letter, which effectively disallows Evarts from testifying in criminal trials on behalf of the police.

Evarts has ​“a credibility issue, not only on current cases, but past cases as well,” Limon argued.

Pattis offered a lesson on criminal trials. He said in state court, witnesses can’t be impeached based on a misdemeanor DUI — even if a witness had two misdemeanor DUI charges, and someone tried to bring that up in court, the judge would block the admission. Misdemeanors can’t be used to impugn a witness’s credibility unless they are related to dishonesty, Pattis said.

“You don’t know that rule?” Pattis asked Limon.

The chief said no.

“You didn’t inquire?”

No, Limon said.

“Do you know the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor?” Pattis asked.

Limon said of course — misdemeanors are punishable by one year or less in prison; felonies are punishable by more than a year.

Pattis, gazing intently behind round spectacles, later pressed Limon further on the rules governing witness credibility in court.

“I could talk about Illinois,” replied Chief Limon, who came to New Haven from that state. He said he didn’t know the answer for Connecticut.

In a surprise guest appearance, former New Haven Police Chief Mel Wearing (pictured) stepped forward to the witness chair. Wearing, who became chief in 1997, received a warm welcome back to his former haunt. Pattis apologized for the method of invitation — via subpoena.

Pattis brought Wearing in to talk about Evarts’ oral interview. Wearing said he didn’t recall interviewing Evarts, because it was many years ago. Wearing did say the proceedings were tape-recorded. Pattis has been trying to get those tapes to prove that Evarts mentioned his past DUI in the interview. Wearing said the tapes would have been kept in the property room; he didn’t know how long they’d be kept for, but he had no reason to believe they would be destroyed.

Dearington Writes In

Pattis also grilled police Capt. Denise Blanchard, the head of internal affairs, on what he dubbed the biggest ​“surprise” of the day — Dearington’s letter. Blanchard said police brought it to the state attorney’s attention Wednesday that Evarts’ case would be heard, and any letter should be submitted ahead of time.

Pattis said he didn’t learn of the letter until Thursday’s hearing. He called it ​“the worst form of ambush that I have endured.” He asked Epstein to continue the hearing on a later date, to give Pattis time to discuss the letter with Dearington.

Chairman Epstein granted the continuance.

“It’s only fair to give him the time” to address the letter, Epstein said.

The hearing was adjourned, set to resume on Monday, July 18 at 6 p.m.

In the hallway, Evarts received hugs and encouragement from colleagues and friends.

One officer said he found it difficult to sit through the hearing and listen to all the charges made against his friend.

“My blood was boiling,” he said.