Insane prosecutor imprisons innocent man, says DNA testing is "flawed"

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,805
475
126
DNA Testing in Rape Case Frees Prisoner After 15 Years

February 15, 2002

DNA Testing in Rape Case Frees Prisoner After 15 Years

By SARA RIMER

HILADELPHIA, Feb. 14 ? Exonerated by DNA testing after 15 years in prison, Bruce Godschalk walked out of the Montgomery County Jail at 4:45 p.m. today, with less than $10 in his pocket, wearing a pair of old jeans, a T-shirt and no winter coat.

With tears in his eyes, Mr. Godschalk, 41, hugged his lawyer, David Rudovsky, and spoke to reporters. Then he and Mr. Rudovsky drove to Mr. Rudovsky's house, and Mr. Godschalk had his first beer in 15 years.

His freedom was "beyond words," Mr. Godschalk said in a telephone interview from the house.

In 1986, when he was 26, Mr. Godschalk was convicted of raping two women, who lived in the same housing complex and sent to prison for 10 to 20 years. For seven years the Montgomery County district attorney's office fought his efforts to obtain DNA testing. Last month, two laboratories, one retained by the prosecution, the other by the defense, found the same results: Both rapes were committed by the same man, and that man was not Bruce Godschalk.

The Montgomery County district attorney, Bruce L. Castor Jr., continued to resist Mr. Godschalk's release, saying that he believed the DNA testing was flawed and that he needed time to confirm the results. Today, after further testing did just that, he wrote to Judge S. Gerald Corso of Common Pleas Court suggesting that Mr. Godschalk be released immediately.

"I am not convinced that Bruce Godschalk is innocent," Mr. Castor said. "But I do not think there is sufficient evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this business a tie goes to the defendant."

Mr. Godschalk was released on a wintry evening, but to him it might have been spring: "It's beautiful," he said. "I'm noticing colors. When you're confined, you don't see colors. You see the same color: gray."

At the time of his arrest, Mr. Godschalk was living with his parents in the Philadelphia suburbs and working for a landscaper. He had two prior arrests; for possession of marijuana and driving while impaired.

Six months after the two rapes, after studying Mr. Godschalk's picture in a mug shot array for more than an hour, one victim identified him as her rapist. The second victim could not make an identification. After several hours of interrogation, Mr. Godschalk made a confession that he later recanted. His motion to throw out the confession was denied in the trial.

Even after DNA testing exonerated Mr. Godschalk, Mr. Castor said today that he had "no reason to doubt the validity of his confession."

Mr. Castor said he would not reopen the investigation. "The victims do not want me to pursue it any further," he said.

While Mr. Godschalk was in prison, his sister, his only sibling; his father; and his mother all died. His mother left money in her will to pay for DNA testing. The tests cost about $10,000, said Barry Scheck, of the Innocence Project of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, which took on Mr. Godschalk's case after he wrote to them.

Mr. Godschalk said he had spent his time in prison reading novels, working in the prison laundry and writing rock 'n' roll songs that he performed in a prison band.

Hope kept him going, he said. "Knowing that one day I'll be free," he said. "You can confine the body, but you cannot confine the mind. You cannot confine the spirit. That's what kept me going: my family, my friends, love."

He said he was keenly aware that he was freed on Valentine's Day. "I had a wonderful girlfriend at the time," he said, referring to his life before prison. "I didn't want to hold onto her. I loved her so much that I didn't want to confine her as well."

Reflecting on his release, Mr. Godschalk, former inmate No. AY9638, said, "I'm not a number anymore."
 

Anghang

Platinum Member
Apr 30, 2001
2,853
0
71
i agree...that prosecutor is insane...i wonder how he confessed tho, under duress, coercion, etc...we'll never know...but dang...its too bad the gov't has to way to compensate those people who are imprisoned wrongly, the system failed them... :(...well, at least i've never heard of the gov't compensating for such a mistake, they just formally apologize and that's it...
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Our legal system is seriously flawed, with prosecutors keeping scores not in terms of justice, but in terms of convictions. If you are not guilty of a crime, the prosecutors would rather have you plea bargain to some lower crime than let you go. That way they get a score, and you minimize the risk.
The main problem with our judicial system is that there is too much politics in it. We should have appointed prosecutors, not elected.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,043
18,352
146


<< Our legal system is seriously flawed, with prosecutors keeping scores not in terms of justice, but in terms of convictions. If you are not guilty of a crime, the prosecutors would rather have you plea bargain to some lower crime than let you go. That way they get a score, and you minimize the risk.
The main problem with our judicial system is that there is too much politics in it. We should have appointed prosecutors, not elected.
>>



I disagree. Appointed officials are harder to remove than elected ones. I'd rather have a choice.
 

Nocturnal

Lifer
Jan 8, 2002
18,927
0
76
this really scares me because someone can just say that i raped them, and i didnt even do it, and i can be thrown in jail. thats kinda sad. karma is a mutherfather.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0


<<

<< Our legal system is seriously flawed, with prosecutors keeping scores not in terms of justice, but in terms of convictions. If you are not guilty of a crime, the prosecutors would rather have you plea bargain to some lower crime than let you go. That way they get a score, and you minimize the risk.
The main problem with our judicial system is that there is too much politics in it. We should have appointed prosecutors, not elected.
>>



I disagree. Appointed officials are harder to remove than elected ones. I'd rather have a choice.
>>



The problem is that these people get reelected over and over despite these abuses. There is an attitude among people that if someone didn't get convicted it's not because they are not guilty, but because the prosecutor failed. So prosecutors main benchmark is conviction rate. That's why the want to convict first, and ask questions later. You might say that it's not prosecutor's role to decide guilt, but just to present the best case they can. But a trial can ruin a person's reputation, a person's finances, and a person's life regardless of the outcome, and also, juries tend to believe the prosecutors in a lot of places. So prosecutor has a huge responsibility.
 

vegetation

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2001
4,270
2
0
If i was this guy, I would physically assault this prosecutor to a significant degree. A year or two more in jail for payback would be well worth it.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Let's clear some things up.
The blame lies with all the people of Montgomery County, PA. Through their elected district attorney, they have sent an innocent man to prison for 15 years. He is representing them and the charges are brought on their behalf. The DA is just a lawyer representing them.
So if you live in Montgomery County, PA, part of the responsibility for this is yours.
 

Aquaman

Lifer
Dec 17, 1999
25,054
13
0
I wonder if he is going to get a large cash settlement for wrongful imprisonment? We had a case were the guy was convicted of murder but was proven innocent 20/25 years later ........... he got $10 million.

Cheers,
Aquaman
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,805
475
126


<< i wonder how he confessed tho, under duress, coercion, etc...we'll never know...but dang >>

Its a misconception that people don't confess to crimes they didn't commit. It happens ALL the time. Partial ignorance, partial fear, whatever, but it happens more than people think. Cops are trained in methods that are designed to elicit confessions, whether it is a true confession or not. They manipulate people deliberately and demand that you make the same statements over and over and over until you phrase something different or you remember more detail, then they claim your story has 'changed'.

Cops can deliberately lie, threaten, and mislead you in order to influence your statements. Some times, innocent people are lead to believe they are going to jail, or that the evidence against them is damning and they will be convicted, so they will admit to a lesser crime. The way cops manipulate witnesses and victims is deplorable. They should have never allowed the victim to mull over the same photos for an HOUR, or show them the same photos over and over until they pick a suspect. If a witness cannot recognize the perpetrator in 5 minutes, they can't at all or the perpetrator isn't among the photos.

Part of the problem is that innocent people often WANT to cooperate with police in every way they can and end-up incriminating themselves. My brother is a cop in Colorado and he will tell you NEVER - EVER - give a statement to the police or answer any questions in a criminal investigation without a lawyer present except for what you are required for identification purposes like your name, address, age, etc. Even if you are innocent, don't. Even if you want to because you are afraid that not doing so will cast suspicion upon you for requesting a lawyer, don't.

Nobody has ever went to prison because they requested a lawyer before making any statements.

Other problem areas are judges instructions to a jury which preclude them from making a value judgement about the fitness of the prosecutorial application or legislative intent of the law.

For example, almost every juror who voted to convict an 18 year-old kid in Wisconsin for felony statutory rape because he got his 15 year-old high school sweetheart pregnant, though the parents KNEW they were dating for months and approved of the relationship, stated the judge gave them no other choice but to convict based on instructions that demanded a strict literal interpretation of the law that was void of any context or perspective. None of them wanted to convict, none thought he was guilty of any crime, but they "had" to convict based on the judge's instructions. A few of the strongest advocates to have the boy's conviction overturned or pardoned by the Governor WERE jury members who convicted him.

A juries' ultimate responsibility is to prevent a miscarriage of justice. A jury was intended to be the ultimate check against zealous prosecutors who misapply the law in a manner that is not consistent with the law's intent (e.g. using a felony sexual predator law, passed in response to a terrible crime where a middle-aged man with a past history of sexual crimes kidnapped, raped, and murdered a little girl, and applying that law to prosecute a high school kid with no history of trouble having a consentual relationship with a female high school student 3 years younger than him).

<< I wonder if he is going to get a large cash settlement for wrongful imprisonment? >>

Generally, no, unless it can be shown that some negligence or misconduct played a role in his prosecution and conviction.

IOW, it would have to something other than an 'honest' mistake.
 

Anghang

Platinum Member
Apr 30, 2001
2,853
0
71
tcsenter...your reply was very insightful :D...

dang tho...now i trust our system even less...*sigh*....but its still good knowledge to have...thanx :)
 

Lalakai

Golden Member
Nov 30, 1999
1,634
0
76
as for the confessions, it was stated earlier and should be repeated. Do not talk w/o your lawyer present.

Detroit is notrious for doing a drag-net after a crime and pulling in all possible witnesses, along with potential criminals. These same witnesses are often detained for hours or days, until the police get what they want; often as a result of the witnesses saying whatever the police want to hear, just so they can leave.

sadder but true, is that the responsibility for putting most of these prosecutors/police chiefs/ect., comes from the voters. It's a proven fact that the high majority of voters are completely clueless on actual facts pertaining to candidates, vote on how a name sounds (Irish sounding name will automatically get 10-15% more votes), or are just too lazy to actually think for themselves and will follow the herd movements. Voting is a privalege and right, but perhaps we should give tests (similiar to driving tests) to make certain that people still retain enough of their facilities to make educated decisions. Nahhhhhhhhhh. :D
 

Arschloch

Golden Member
Oct 29, 1999
1,014
0
0
DNA testing is pretty clearly flawed! After all, it said that the chances that blood found in the white Ford Bronco was NOT OJ Simpson's was something like 7 billion to 1... but he was acquitted! OJ didn't do it, and the DNA was wrong? ;)
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
i don't care if this was an honest mistake or not, this guy should get at least some compensation for losing 15 years of his f*cking life.

and appointed ones would suck even more, because then there'd be even *more* politics than there currently is.
 

ScottyB

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2002
6,677
1
0
All this stuff happens because our dictators, I mean elected officials think that they are gods and can do as they please. They don't think of themselves as an extention of the masses, which they are supposed to be.
 

LuNoTiCK

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2001
4,698
0
71
Can the guy sue even? I heard that they can't if they have been in jail they lose their rights, even when they are wrongly convicted. They should make the prosecutor pay some money for that. The sad thing is that Bruce Godschalk had to have the DNA testing paid for by his family. He lost his whole family because of that also.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
This is horrible, but sadly happens all the time. I don't know how to fix the system, but I do know how you can help keep this from happening to you. As it has been said before in this thread, any time you are being questioned over a criminal matter, KEEP YOUR DAMN MOUTH SHUT for anyone and everyone but your lawyer.
 

mithrandir2001

Diamond Member
May 1, 2001
6,545
1
0
Too many prosecutors seem to have a zealotry streak. It's as if their ego gets in the way of reason. They target a defendent and will not accept anything else but thinking that the person is guilty. Do they have a strong case? Doesn't matter. They need to prosecute somebody and when they find one, they latch on and won't let go. Perhaps they think they have to "win"...who they incarcerate isn't necessary 100% important, as long as the case is closed.