The city of Syracuse, nestled in upstate New York, finds itself at a crossroads regarding a notorious miscarriage of justice. Nearly five years ago, Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick publicly condemned the county’s decades-old decision to prosecute Anthony Broadwater for the rape of author Alice Sebold. With the DA’s backing, Broadwater’s conviction was overturned. However, the county government and the city of Syracuse continue to contest Broadwater’s lawsuit seeking damages for the years he spent incarcerated.
The conflict extends beyond the criminal authorities who view Broadwater as a victim of injustice and the civil authorities defending the original prosecution. A key expert hired by Syracuse, Bennett Gershman, a veteran law professor at Pace University, has seemingly undergone a dramatic shift in opinion.
The Expert’s Dilemma: A Change of Heart
In, Gershman filed a report in the civil suit asserting that the city’s prosecutors did not engage in misconduct in the Broadwater case. However, just over a year prior, Gershman had described the prosecution’s actions as manufacturing a case against Broadwater, labeling it the most heinous kind of prosecutorial misconduct. He went on to say, This is tyranny.
When interviewed for this article, Gershman explained that his perspective evolved as he delved deeper into the case. He claimed that the facts were more complex and nuanced than he initially understood. Lawyers on both sides of the litigation declined to comment.
The Ethical Implications of Changing Stances
While it is not uncommon for experts to be retained by different parties in legal actions, it is rare to see an expert take a position in court that contradicts a previously expressed opinion. Stephen Gillers, an emeritus professor and ethics expert at New York University School of Law, noted that It’s not unethical to change your mind. However, he added that 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 specializing in criminal law and ethics, echoed similar sentiments. She found it odd that Gershman would make such strongly worded comments and then take a position as an expert on behalf of one of the parties. She emphasized the importance of maintaining neutrality as a commentator and the inherently partisan aspect of being an expert in a legal case.
The ProPublica Investigation and the Original Case
ProPublica’s in-depth investigation into the original criminal case revealed multiple lapses in the prosecution of Broadwater and exposed broader failures in Syracuse’s criminal justice system at the time. The case dates back to the early hours of May 8, 1981, when Alice Sebold, then a Syracuse University freshman, was brutally raped in a park near campus. Despite medical evidence supporting her account, the police initially did not believe her.
Five months later, Sebold spotted Broadwater on a busy street and believed him to be her rapist. She reported the sighting to the police, leading to Broadwater’s arrest. The case hinged on Sebold’s testimony, but at a lineup, she initially identified a man other than Broadwater. What transpired after this misidentification is central to the current litigation.
Current District Attorney Fitzpatrick argued that the prosecution should have halted immediately after Sebold picked somebody else. However, the prosecution continued, and Sebold eventually identified Broadwater as her rapist at trial. Broadwater was convicted and served 16 years in state prison, followed by nearly 23 more years as a registered sex offender.
Sebold’s account of the events following the failed lineup identification has remained broadly consistent but with different shadings in her 1999 memoir and her 2026 deposition testimony. Her memoir suggests she was influenced by police officers and a prosecutor, while her deposition testimony indicates she knew she had made a mistake before speaking to them. These distinctions are crucial as they could constitute misconduct if police or prosecutors influenced Sebold.
The prosecution made no attempt to pause the case or investigate further after the failed identification. Prosecutor Gail Uebelhoer had Sebold write an affidavit explaining her lineup selection, and Uebelhoer’s remarks to Sebold further complicated the case. Sebold’s memoir later became a bestseller and played a role in Broadwater’s eventual exoneration in 2026.
The Role of Bennett Gershman
Bennett Gershman, author of a textbook called Prosecutorial Misconduct is a leading expert on the subject. He has warned prosecutors about the pitfalls of eyewitness identifications, citing them as a major source of wrongful convictions. In, Gershman reviewed the materials of the original trial and the motions to vacate Broadwater’s conviction, expressing shock at the blatant manipulation of the witness.
However, in his 2026 report for the city and county, Gershman asserted that Uebelhoer had merely expressed her opinions and was under no obligation to disclose what she said to the defense. He claimed that Uebelhoer behaved properly and professionally, with nothing in the record to undermine her integrity. When questioned about his reversal, Gershman insisted that he had a more comprehensive understanding of the case after studying it more closely.
Gershman’s current opinion focuses on the portion of Sebold’s 2026 testimony where she claimed to have recognized her erroneous lineup pick on her own. He dismissed the account Sebold gave in her memoir and downplayed the ambiguous parts of her testimony. Gershman argued that Uebelhoer’s remarks had no impact on Sebold or the verdict, and anything said after the lineup was gratuitous and had no bearing on her identification.
In a subsequent call, Gershman acknowledged that Uebelhoer did commit misconduct but maintained that it hadn’t affected the outcome. He emphasized that his assignment was to assess legality, not ethics, and that he was paid $10,000 for the assignment. Gershman’s evolving positions may be scrutinized if Broadwater’s civil suit reaches trial, with the challenge of convincing a jury of his current view’s credibility.
