Eric Sarsfield

The Crime

In early August 1986, 30-year-old T.G. moved to a garden level apartment in Marlborough, Massachusetts to take on a new job at United Way. On the afternoon of August 24, she was cleaning on the recessed patio when a young white man stopped on the street above and asked for directions. After she gave him directions, T.G. resumed cleaning.

When she looked up again, the man jumped down to the patio. T.G. told him to leave, noticing that his words were slurred, his eyes were glassy, and he smelled of alcohol. He asked for a drink of water and then dragged her into the living room, pulled off her clothes, and sexually assaulted her.

Afterward, T.G. fled to a nearby store. While there, she saw her attacker leave. T.G. called her supervisor who picked her up and took her to the police station.

T.G. told police that the attacker was about 20 to 25 years old, 5 feet 10 inches tall, with a slender build, dark blonde hair cut in bangs and covering his ears, blue eyes, clean-shaven, and had a small blue tattoo of a cross on his upper right arm. She said he was wearing a blue and white golf shirt, a blue windbreaker and jeans. He was carrying a Walkman radio.

T.G. was taken to the hospital where a rape kit was taken.

The Investigation

Detectives Robert Jusseaume and Albert Pitard then drove T.G. to her apartment to get fresh clothes. They found the attacker’s jacket and radio on her couch. 

At the police station, T.G. helped prepare a composite sketch of the attacker. She also viewed police books of photographs but did not recognize anyone.

The following day, on Aug. 25, 1986, T.G. met Police Officer Dennis Clark, who lived in her apartment building. In his apartment, he showed her a fuzzy black and white surveillance tape from a convenience store. She identified a man as her attacker based on his jacket, body language, and stance. The man’s face was not visible on the tape.

In the following days and weeks, the police showed T.G. hundreds of photos of possible suspects from multiple high school yearbooks, police photograph books, and photo arrays. She made no identification, although she said that one yearbook photo bore a strong resemblance to the attacker.

During the last week of September, Detective Jusseaume followed 30-year-old Eric Sarsfield home. Detective Jusseaume asked Mr. Sarsfield for his driver’s license and said Mr. Sarsfield looked similar to a sketch of the attacker, and asked him to take off his jacket and show his arms. Mr. Sarsfield complied and showed he had no tattoos.

Several days later, Detective Pitard and Detective Jody Merlini went to Mr. Sarsfield’s home and questioned him. Mr. Sarsfield agreed to go to the police where he was interrogated further.

Mr. Sarsfield said he had nothing to do with the crime. He was allowed to leave, but was brought back to the station on Dec. 8, 1986. Detective Jusseaume showed Mr. Sarsfield a bag containing a Walkman radio and headphones, and asked Mr. Sarsfield to take them out. Mr. Sarsfield declined, for fear of leaving fingerprints.

Mr.  Sarsfield was photographed and allowed to leave. 

The police put Mr. Sarsfield’s photograph in a photographic lineup and took it to T.G.’s apartment that evening. After first saying she was too tired, she agreed and viewed approximately 10 photographs. She said two were “possibilities.”

During this viewing, Detectives Clark and Jusseaume repeatedly pointed to Mr. Sarsfield’s photo and asked, “What about this one?” T.G. told them she did not know if he was her attacker, and would have to see him in person. The officers said Mr. Sarsfield was at the police station and asked her to go there right then. Reluctantly, she agreed to go, believing police considered him a suspect and that she would lose the opportunity to view him if she didn’t go immediately.

Meanwhile, Detective Pitard intercepted Mr. Sarsfield, who had stopped to have a beer on his way home. Mr. Sarsfield agreed to go to the station. He was put in a viewing room with Detective Pitard. T.G. viewed Mr. Sarsfield through a one-way window. She recognized him from his photograph, but had difficulty seeing him because the room was too dark.

The police told Mr. Sarsfield to put on the windbreaker left by the attacker. T.G. then said she was “pretty sure, but not definite” that Mr. Sarsfield was her attacker. She asked to hear his voice. The viewing room door was opened and Mr. Sarsfield was told to speak loud enough to be heard. T.G. thought Mr. Sarsfield’s words were slurred like the attacker’s. 

When the officers told her they could not arrest him unless she positively identified him, T.G said she was 95 percent sure Mr. Sarsfield was the attacker. 

A few days later, Detective Merlini went to T.G.’s apartment and again displayed a photographic lineup that included Mr. Sarsfield. T.G. said she had already seen that photographic array. Detective Merlini then told her that Mr. Sarsfield’s wife had identified him in the convenience store surveillance tape. Detective Merlini also told T.G. that after Mr. Sarsfield’s wife saw the videotape, she asked, “What did he do this time?” although Mr. Sarsfield had no criminal record.

T.G., despite her uncertainty, selected Mr. Sarsfield’s photo.

On Jan. 14, 1987, Mr. Sarsfield was arrested and charged with rape.

The Trial

On July 3, 1987, with the trial set to begin in four days, Detective Jusseaume claimed that he had just found a three-page handwritten report that he had authored that recounted an interview with Mr. Sarsfield in September 1986. According to the report, Mr. Sarsfield had volunteered that he sometimes drew fake tattoos on his arms. The report was suspicious because the police department required that all reports be typed and turned in at the time they were generated.

On July 7, 1987, Mr. Sarsfield went to trial in Middlesex County Superior Court. T.G. identified him as her attacker.

The rape kit and T.G.’s clothing were introduced as evidence, but there was no forensic testimony. The rape kit had never been submitted for testing. The prosecution contended that the biological contents of the rape kit had deteriorated and could not be tested. 

Mr. Sarsfield testified and denied committing the crime. He said that he had no tattoos, and that he did not draw fake tattoos on his arms. He could not remember his whereabouts on the day of the crime.

Detective Jusseaume was allowed to testify in rebuttal about his late-disclosed report.

On July 14, 1987, Mr. Sarsfield was convicted of rape and assault and battery. He was sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison. On Oct. 27, 1989, after the convictions were affirmed on appeal, he surrendered to prison.

At parole eligibility hearings in 1996 and 1997, the parole board denied Mr. Sarsfield parole after he said he could not admit to a crime he did not commit. 

On Dec. 28, 1997, Mr. Sarsfield  filed a motion seeking DNA testing of the rape kit. The prosecution opposed it.

In 1998, Mr. Sarsfield was again denied parole. Finally, on May 30, 1999, Mr. Sarsfield was released on parole and required to register as a sex offender.

The Exoneration

In September 1999, the motion for DNA testing was granted. In March 2000, the testing excluded Mr. Sarsfield as the source of semen found on T.G.’s clothing. Additional testing on vaginal swabs and a blood swatch from the rape kit also excluded Mr. Sarsfield.

On Aug. 3, 2000, a petition for a new trial was granted. The district attorney’s office did not re-prosecute. 

Mr. Sarsfield, joined by Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck, later filed a federal civil rights lawsuit that was settled for $2 million. He also sued under the Massachusetts compensation statute and was awarded $500,000.