How a Paid Expert Reversed His Views of Prosecution in Alice Sebold Rape Case
A paid expert, Bennett Gershman, reversed his views on the prosecution of Anthony Broadwater in the Alice Sebold rape case, stating that the city's prosecutors 'did not engage in misconduct' despite previously calling it 'the most heinous kind of prosecutorial misconduct'.
Intelligence analysis by Llama
A paid expert, Bennett Gershman, changed his opinion on the prosecution of Anthony Broadwater in the Alice Sebold rape case, stating that the city's prosecutors did not engage in misconduct despite previously calling it 'the most heinous kind of prosecutorial misconduct'.
A paid expert, Bennett Gershman, changed his opinion on the prosecution of Anthony Broadwater in the Alice Sebold rape case. He initially said that the city's prosecutors 'manufactured a case' against Broadwater, but later said they didn't engage in misconduct. This change of heart has raised questions about Gershman's ability to remain impartial.
Analysis
A Change of Heart
Bennett Gershman, a veteran Pace University law professor, was hired as an expert by the city and county in the civil suit filed by Anthony Broadwater. In a report filed in December 2025, Gershman stated that the city's prosecutors 'did not engage in misconduct' in the Broadwater case. However, a little over a year before that, Gershman told a reporter that prosecutors had 'manufactured a case' against Broadwater, calling it 'the most heinous kind of prosecutorial misconduct — when the prosecutor is creating guilt.'
Gershman's change of heart has raised questions about the role of experts in the legal system. Stephen Gillers, an emeritus professor and ethics expert at New York University School of Law, stated that it's not unethical to change one's mind, but Gershman's reversal is 'an embarrassment and it's going to undermine his credibility going forward.' Rebecca Roiphe, a professor at New York Law School, also expressed concerns about Gershman's change of heart, stating that it raises questions about his ability to remain impartial.
The case of Anthony Broadwater highlights the complexities of the criminal justice system. The original case dates back to the early hours of May 8, 1981, when Sebold, then a Syracuse University freshman, was brutally raped in a park near campus. Initially, the police did not believe her, even though a medical examination and physical evidence supported her account. Five months later, Sebold spotted Broadwater on a busy street and believed him to be her rapist. She reported the sighting to police, and Broadwater was arrested. From the beginning, the case hinged on Sebold's testimony. But at a lineup, she identified a man other than Broadwater as her rapist. What happened right after that misindentification is at the heart of the current litigation.
In the view of the current DA, Fitzpatrick, the prosecution should have halted the moment Sebold picked somebody else: 'You know, she didn’t pick out the wrong guy. She picked out the guy,' Fitzpatrick told a reporter. 'She picked out the guy that she thought had raped her. And it wasn’t Anthony. Case is over. Stop.' But the prosecution continued. Sebold identified him as her rapist at trial. Broadwater was convicted and ultimately served 16 years in state prison, and lived as a registered sex offender for nearly 23 more.
The case raises questions about the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the potential for prosecutorial misconduct. It also highlights the complexities of the criminal justice system and the potential for experts to change their opinions based on new information.
Key points
- Bennett Gershman, a paid expert, reversed his views on the prosecution of Anthony Broadwater in the Alice Sebold rape case.
- Gershman initially said that the city's prosecutors 'manufactured a case' against Broadwater, but later said they didn't engage in misconduct.
- The case raises questions about the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the potential for prosecutorial misconduct.
- The case highlights the complexities of the criminal justice system and the potential for experts to change their opinions based on new information.
The case may lead to a re-examination of the criminal justice system and the potential for prosecutorial misconduct. It may also lead to a greater understanding of the complexities of eyewitness testimony and the potential for experts to change their opinions based on new information.
The case may also lead to a further erosion of trust in the criminal justice system and the potential for experts to be influenced by their clients' interests.
