Syracuse Legal Battle Intensifies as Expert Witness Reverses Stance on Anthony Broadwater Case

The city of Syracuse and Onondaga County, New York, currently find themselves in a state of profound legal and moral contradiction regarding one of the region’s most high-profile wrongful conviction cases. Nearly five years after Anthony Broadwater was exonerated for the 1981 rape of author Alice Sebold, a bitter civil litigation process has exposed deep rifts between criminal and civil authorities. While Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick famously apologized to Broadwater in 2021, asserting that the original prosecution was a failure of justice, the municipal governments continue to aggressively contest a federal lawsuit filed by Broadwater seeking damages for his 16 years of incarceration and decades spent as a registered sex offender.

At the heart of this ongoing conflict is a striking reversal by a prominent legal expert whose shifting testimony has raised questions about the ethics of expert witness participation in civil rights litigation. Bennett Gershman, a veteran Pace University law professor and a nationally recognized authority on prosecutorial misconduct, has moved from calling the Broadwater case an act of "tyranny" to asserting in a formal legal report that the original prosecutors "did not engage in misconduct." This pivot has become a focal point for legal analysts and ethics experts, who suggest it could undermine the credibility of the defense’s arguments as the case moves toward a potential jury trial.

A Legacy of Error: The 1981 Prosecution

The origins of this legal saga date back to May 8, 1981, when Alice Sebold, then a 18-year-old freshman at Syracuse University, was brutally assaulted in Thornden Park. The initial police response was marked by skepticism toward the victim’s account, despite physical evidence of the attack. Five months later, Sebold spotted a Black man on a street near the university and, believing him to be her attacker, alerted the authorities. That man was Anthony Broadwater.

The subsequent investigation relied almost exclusively on eyewitness identification, a method now known to be the leading cause of wrongful convictions in the United States. According to data from the Innocence Project, eyewitness misidentification has played a role in nearly 70% of convictions later overturned by DNA evidence. In Broadwater’s case, the identification process was flawed from the outset. During a police lineup, Sebold failed to identify Broadwater, instead selecting a different individual as her rapist.

Despite this failure, the prosecution, led by then-Assistant District Attorney Gail Uebelhoer, proceeded with the case. Sebold would later identify Broadwater in the courtroom, leading to his 1982 conviction. He served 16 years in state prison and remained on the sex offender registry until his exoneration in 2021. The reversal of his conviction was prompted by an investigation that revealed the prosecution’s reliance on junk science—specifically microscopic hair analysis—and the suppression of information regarding the failed lineup.

The Gershman Reversal: From "Tyranny" to "Proper Behavior"

The current civil litigation, which alleges malicious prosecution and violations of constitutional rights, has drawn Bennett Gershman into the spotlight. In August 2024, during an interview regarding prosecutorial accountability, Gershman reviewed the Broadwater trial transcripts and expressed profound outrage. He characterized the prosecutor’s actions as "the most heinous kind of prosecutorial misconduct," adding that "misconduct is kind of glib in this case… this is tyranny."

However, by December 2025, after being retained as a paid expert for the city and county for a fee of $10,000, Gershman’s stance underwent a dramatic transformation. In a formal report filed for the defense, he concluded that Uebelhoer and the investigating detectives "behaved properly and professionally." He argued that the prosecutor’s failure to disclose certain suggestive remarks made to Sebold after the botched lineup did not constitute a violation of the "Brady" rule—the legal requirement that prosecutors must turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense.

When questioned about this 180-degree turn, Gershman maintained that his initial comments were made without the benefit of a full review of the case materials, including Sebold’s 2025 deposition. He asserted that the facts are "complex" and "nuanced," and that Sebold’s recent testimony suggested she had realized her lineup error independently of any prosecutorial influence. Nevertheless, the shift has drawn criticism from legal peers. Stephen Gillers, an emeritus professor at New York University School of Law, described the reversal as "an embarrassment" that would likely "undermine his credibility going forward."

Chronology of the Anthony Broadwater Case

• May 1981: Alice Sebold is raped in Syracuse; police initially express doubt regarding her account.
• October 1981: Sebold identifies Anthony Broadwater on the street; Broadwater is arrested.
• October 1981: Sebold fails to identify Broadwater in a police lineup, picking another man instead.
• 1982: Broadwater is convicted of first-degree rape and related charges; sentenced to 8 to 25 years.
• 1998: Broadwater is released from prison but remains a registered sex offender.
• 1999: Sebold publishes "Lucky," a memoir detailing the rape and trial, which later becomes a bestseller.
• 2021: Onondaga County DA William Fitzpatrick moves to vacate the conviction after a re-examination of the evidence.
• March 2023: The State of New York settles a wrongful imprisonment claim with Broadwater for $5.5 million.
• 2024-2025: Civil litigation against the City of Syracuse and Onondaga County proceeds; expert witness Bennett Gershman issues conflicting statements.

The "Brady" Violation and Suggestive Identification

The crux of Broadwater’s civil claim rests on what happened immediately following the failed 1981 lineup. In her memoir "Lucky," Sebold wrote that she felt a "wave of nausea" after the lineup and was told by the prosecutor that she had been "duped" by Broadwater. According to the book, Uebelhoer claimed that Broadwater had placed a friend in the lineup who looked "almost identical" to him to confuse her.

Broadwater’s attorneys argue that these statements were "false and highly suggestive," designed to coach Sebold into making a positive identification at trial. If the prosecution failed to disclose these coaching sessions to the defense, it would represent a significant violation of the defendant’s due process rights.

In his 2025 report, Gershman dismissed these concerns, stating that the prosecutor’s remarks were merely "opinions" and were not "material" to the outcome of the case. He later qualified this in a follow-up interview, suggesting that while the prosecutor "shouldn’t have said what she said," it did not prejudice the defendant’s constitutional rights. This distinction between "unethical" behavior and "illegal" misconduct is a central pillar of the city’s defense strategy.

Broader Impact and Systemic Implications

The Broadwater case is more than a localized legal dispute; it serves as a case study for the systemic failures within the American criminal justice system during the late 20th century. A recent investigation by ProPublica uncovered that while Syracuse police were focused on Broadwater, multiple serial rapists were operating in the area, committing assaults with striking similarities to the Sebold case. The tunnel vision of the 1981 investigation not only resulted in the conviction of an innocent man but also allowed actual perpetrators to remain at large for years.

Furthermore, the case highlights the tension inherent in the role of legal commentators who also serve as expert witnesses. Rebecca Roiphe, a professor at New York Law School, noted that the roles of a neutral media commentator and a partisan legal expert are often in conflict. "It raises concerns," she said, regarding Gershman’s willingness to provide strongly worded public commentary before taking a paid position for one of the parties involved.

As the civil suit progresses, the credibility of the evidence and the experts will be under intense scrutiny. If the case reaches a jury, the city will have to reconcile its defense with the public apology issued by its own District Attorney. For Anthony Broadwater, the litigation represents the final hurdle in a four-decade quest for full accountability. While the $5.5 million state settlement provided some measure of financial relief, the refusal of the city and county to admit fault remains a significant point of contention.

The outcome of this suit could have lasting implications for how municipal governments handle civil rights claims following exonerations. If Syracuse successfully defends the original prosecution’s conduct despite the exoneration, it may set a precedent that makes it more difficult for the wrongfully convicted to seek damages from local authorities. Conversely, a victory for Broadwater could signal a new era of accountability for the "suggestive" tactics used by investigators and prosecutors in the pre-DNA era.