Darren SharperIn an attempt to keep former NFL player Darren Sharper, 38, behind bars for felony rape, Arizona prosecutors presented evidence that semen matching Sharper’s DNA was found on one of his alleged victims’ leggings. Testing also revealed a partial DNA match on the victim’s genitals.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Warren Granville continued Wednesday’s hearing until Thursday after about an hour of testimony from Tempe detective Kevin Mace. If Judge Granville decides Sharper is entitled to bail, Sharper could be released from a Los Angeles jail, where he’s been incarcerated since February.

But Sharper is also charged with raping two other women in Los Angeles. Superior Court Judge Renee Korn cited Sharper’s no-bail status in Arizona as a reason to keep him locked up in California.

“I think the charges pending out of the state of Arizona are sufficiently serious that the court…is going to set bail at no bail,” Korn says.

Sharper’s attorneys, however, contest his no-bail status in Arizona and offered house arrest.

House arrest?

The Arizona victim is one of two allegedly raped by Sharper after being drugged by a generic form of Ambien in November. In addition to the four women in Arizona and California, Sharper is under investigation in three other states for the alleged rapes of five more women since September – two in Las Vegas, Nev; two in New Orleans, La.; and one in Miami Beach, Fla. All follow a similar pattern: After Sharper parties with these women, he allegedly offers them drug-laced drinks and rapes them while they’re unconscious, according to court records and police reports.

Sharper was free in Los Angeles on a $1M bail one week before he was incarcerated. But Sharper deserves no bail. Keep his ass behind bars.


Like Us On Facebook Follow Us On Twitter
  • 1love

    This article is irresponsible and ignorant.

    Mr. Sharper is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. As African-Americans, we know that the criminal justice system can often be an unfair place, especially for men of color. In addition, Sharper is rather entitled to bail as a man with no prior criminal history.

    “Testing also revealed a partial DNA match on the victim’s genitals.”
    By definition, the DNA is a partial mismatch, thus reasonable doubt.

    Perhaps he had consensual sex with the woman. That question is one only the lady, Sharper, & God can answer. Too bad, many have already convicted Sharper before he can offer a defense.

    • Me

      but the author is allowed to come up w/her own opinion of the info she knows so far. she ain’t on the jury, so it doesn’t matter if she convicted him in her mind. other than the last 2 sentences everything in the article is factual statements & she’s entitled to her opinion.

    • 1love

      The author is entitled to her own opinion. She is not entitled to her own facts. Furthermore, her opinion article has the ability to bias potential jury members.

      Fact – Mr. Sharper is innocent until proven guilty based on the US Constitution.

      Fact – Mr. Sharper has no previous criminal convictions.

      Fact – Bail or lack thereof is not based on evidence – there is no evidence yet as there has not been a trial.

      Fact – The DNA is a partial mismatch.

      This blog cannot rant & rave about the constant injustices that African-Americans face in the criminal justice system, and then run to the same tired talking points used to convict African-American men before a trial even takes place.

    • Me

      fact – the author ain’t in a court of law, so its her opinion that he belongs behind bars & her opinion don’t affect his case b/c they won’t be reading online opinions in his trial
      fact – the author never claimed he had previous convictions
      fact – the author never presented bail as evidence of anything other than the fact that he’s locked up
      fact – saying dna is a partial match is the same thing as saying its a partial mismatch & the author is allowed to make that statement however she please
      you talking about ranting & raving when the whole article except the last TWO sentences is all facts & she’s entitled to the opinions she put in those last 2 sentences. if you wanna take up signs & camp out in front of the courthouse for this dude ain’t nobody, not even the author stopping you but you name calling over conclusions you made up in your own head