Hey, there! Log in / Register

Man on probation for one rape gets at least 30 years in prison for second rape; faces trial for third

A Suffolk Superior Court jury on Friday convicted Eduardo Rodriguez, 32, on two counts of aggravated rape and on single counts of kidnapping, unarmed robbery and indecent assault and battery for an attack on a woman at Claremont Street and Greenwich Park in the South End on Aug. 22, 2016, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.

Suffolk Superior Court Judge Maureen Hogan yesterday sentenced him to 30 to 35 years in state prison, followed by 10 years of probation. Prosecutors had asked for a sentence of life.

According to the DA's office, Rodriguez faces trial later this year for a third rape, committed just hours after the South End attack. At the time of the rapes, Rodriguez was on probation for a 2007 rape, for which had received a sentence of 8 to 10 years. His new sentence will begin only after he finishes a 3-5-year sentence for violating the terms of his probation - by getting arrested for a new rape - the DA's office reports.

According to the DA's office:

During the course of last week’s jury trial, prosecutors presented evidence and testimony to prove that at approximately 12:30 a.m. on Aug. 22, 2016, Rodriguez was riding a BMX bicycle as he approached the victim walking in the area of Greenwich Park and Claremont Street. Rodriguez threatened the victim with a knife and forced her to walk with him to Carter Playground. There, he sexually assaulted and robbed the victim of her phone and approximately $250.

The victim was treated at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and underwent a sexual assault examination.

Boston Police detectives linked Rodriguez to the attack through the GPS monitoring device he was ordered to wear as a condition of his probation for his earlier conviction. Those GPS records placed him at Carter Playground at the time of the assault and showed his movements to and from the location – including a stop in an alley where police later found the clothing Rodriguez had worn at the time of the assault. Security cameras along his path also captured him riding a bicycle and then walking with the victim in the direction of the playground.

The victim positively identified Rodriguez in a photo array as the man who attacked her, and relatives of Rodriguez identified the bicycle he was observed riding as one he borrowed from a family member that day.



Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!


I trust the law makes these distinctions for good reason. And I know not all those accused are guilty of the worst charge. But I have to also wonder how often a lesser charge is unnecessarily offered in plea to expedite the machinery of justice, only to produce a new victim.

Voting closed 3

I would IMAGINE aggravated rape is somehow seen as worst than say statutory rape, but ultimately rape is rape so anyone convicted should be sentenced to the most time possible.

Hopefully in this case the guy gets what's coming to him and prison and he'll never be a free man again.

Voting closed 11

regarding " serving the most time possible". 30 to 35 is a far cry from life imprisonment. And the judge who imposed this sentence doesn't even have to provide a justification on the public record as to why he didn't follow the prosecutor's recommendations.

Bad deal on so many levels.

Voting closed 13

I highly doubt this guy gets to live for 30-35 years in jail.

Voting closed 8

And the judge who imposed this sentence doesn't even have to provide a justification on the public record as to why he didn't follow the prosecutor's recommendations.

He didn't follow the defense's recommendations either. When a judge hears from two opposed sides in a matter, and he fails to rule entirely in line with one of the two sides, you think he should be required to provide a justification for his ruling?

Voting closed 6

Aggravated rape means that the rape happened during the commission of the crimes of robbery, armed robbery, and/or kidnapping.

Voting closed 0

Apparently, the rapist _told_ the victim that he had a knife, but did not (in fact) show it to the victim -- and the prosecution offered no evidence that he (in fact) DID have a knife (and the available evidence actually suggested he probably didn't have a knife). Proof of possession of such a weapon would have been needed in order to convict the defendant of the most serious charge. The jury members in this matter took their responsibilities quite seriously.

Voting closed 0