Eric Sarsfield

● Defense attorney argued that there was a mistaken eyewitness identification.

“Q: Did you make an intelligent decision to talk? A: Yes. Q: You did that of your own free will? A: Yes. Q: Why did you do that? A: Because I didn’t commit a rape, and I just wanted to get out of that. . . . Q: When was the first time you saw [the victim]? A: When she walked in that door on Tuesday morning. Q: You’ve never seen that woman before in your life? A: Never. Q: Did you rape that woman? A: No. Q: Did you listen to what she said you did to her? A: Yes. Q: Did you do those things? A: No.”

• Eyewitness

• Intraracial Identificaiton
• Victim

• Composite drawing
• Photo array
• Showup

Yes ● Show-up ● Victim not told attacker might not be present

“Q: Now, up to this point when they had been showing you photographs, did they give you any instructions or did they tell you anything? A: No. They said, "Just look through them and see if someone looks familiar.” Police conducted a showup of the defendant, at which she did not identify him – “So then you knew that the only non-police person in the room was the suspect, didn’t you? A. Yes.”

Yes ● Initial nonidentification ● Initially uncertain ● Discrepancies in description – height, hair, tattoo on arms

As noted, victim did not identify Sarsfield at show-up. Then, “I was 95 percent sure that was him” but not positive, after viewing photo arrays and show-up. “Q: Yet when you saw the defendant in person, you said the lighting was such – – it was dimmed in the room — and so you couldn’t make a positive identification; didn’t you? A: At that point, no.” At trial she was certain, and said – "That is him. I am 100 percent sure." “Q: Did the witness in your presence identify Eric Sarsfield as the man who committed the rape? A: No, not — no.” Victim described a blue cross tattoo on the attacker’s right arm; defendant had not tattoo. Victim’s description to police was of a man with “blond hair but at trial changed description to “dark blond hair, brown hair”