In a case that has become emblematic of prosecutorial overreach, the city and county of Syracuse are defending themselves against civil litigation while facing scrutiny from their own paid expert witness. Anthony Broadwater spent 16 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted of raping author Alice Sebold in 1981. His conviction was vacated in 2021 with support from current Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick, who has publicly criticized the original prosecution. Now, a legal expert hired to assist Syracuse's defense has drawn attention for dramatically changing his public position on whether prosecutors engaged in misconduct.
Broadwater's case dates to May 8, 1981, when Sebold, then a Syracuse University freshman, was raped at knifepoint near campus. Police initially did not believe her account despite medical evidence supporting her claims. Five months later, Sebold spotted Broadwater on a public street and believed he was her attacker. At a police lineup, however, she identified a different man as her rapist. The prosecution continued anyway. Broadwater was convicted based largely on Sebold's trial testimony and served 16 years in state prison before his release.
In December 2025, Syracuse's paid expert Bennett Gershman, a veteran Pace University law professor, filed an expert report in the civil suit asserting that city prosecutors 'did not engage in misconduct' in prosecuting Broadwater. But roughly a year earlier, Gershman had given very different comments to reporters, saying prosecutors had 'manufactured a case' against Broadwater and called it 'the most heinous kind of prosecutorial misconduct — when the prosecutor is creating guilt.' He described the conduct as 'so much worse than plain misconduct. This is tyranny.'
When interviewed for this article, Gershman said he changed his mind after further review. 'The facts,' he stated, are more 'complex' and 'nuanced' than how he initially understood them. Lawyers representing both sides of the Broadwater litigation declined to comment.
What the Left Is Saying
Criminal justice reform advocates argue that Gershman's reversal highlights systemic problems with how prosecutorial misconduct is handled in civil courts. They note that DA Fitzpatrick's public acknowledgment that the original prosecution was flawed creates an apparent contradiction with the city's defense against financial damages. Reform groups say this case demonstrates why courts should hold municipalities accountable for wrongful convictions and why expert witnesses retained by defendants should maintain consistency between their public statements and court filings.
Legal ethics experts quoted in coverage of the story, including Stephen Gillers of NYU School of Law, said Gershman's reversal is 'an embarrassment' that could undermine his credibility with juries. Professor Rebecca Roiphe of New York Law School called it 'odd' that an expert would offer strong public comments before taking a partisan position as a retained witness. Both experts noted the inherent tension between commentary and advocacy roles.
What the Right Is Saying
Defenders of prosecutorial discretion argue that Gershman's changed opinion reflects legitimate scholarly reassessment rather than any ethical breach. They note that criminal cases often involve complex factual records requiring expert analysis, and that initial impressions can differ from conclusions reached after thorough review of case documents. Supporters say the professor was entitled to update his views upon examining evidence not available during earlier comments.
Some legal commentators have cautioned against reading too much into an expert changing positions based on new information, arguing this is how rigorous analysis should work. Others note that Syracuse officials face a difficult balance between acknowledging past wrongs and protecting taxpayer resources in civil litigation. The city and county argue they are entitled to present their best defense regardless of historical acknowledgments by other officials.
What the Numbers Show
Broadwater served 16 years in state prison for a crime he did not commit, followed by nearly 23 additional years as a registered sex offender under restrictions tied to his wrongful conviction. His conviction was vacated in 2021 after DA Fitzpatrick reviewed the case and determined prosecutorial failures warranted reversal. In court filings, Fitzpatrick stated that Sebold's identification of someone other than Broadwater at the lineup should have ended the prosecution: 'You know, she didn't pick out the wrong guy. She picked out the guy,' he said of her subsequent identification at trial. 'She picked out the guy that she thought had raped her. And it wasn't Anthony. Case is over. Stop.'
The civil lawsuit remains pending in Onondaga County courts. ProPublica has documented that multiple other rapes with similar characteristics occurred in Syracuse around the time of Sebold's assault, suggesting broader failures in the criminal justice system allowed perpetrators to continue.
The Bottom Line
Gershman's about-face illustrates tensions between public commentary and paid legal advocacy. Legal ethics experts say his reversal may complicate Syracuse's defense by raising questions about what he truly believes. Broadwater's lawsuit seeks compensation for four decades of wrongful imprisonment and registry status. Both the civil case and broader questions about prosecutorial accountability remain unresolved, with a potential jury trial on damages ahead.