Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: DNA should free him

Thursday, Feb. 7, 2002 | 8:32 a.m.

WHEN IS a scientific certainty not so certain?

The answer to that question is playing itself out in a Philadelphia criminal case that should have been over almost 15 years ago.

Instead, because of the advances of modern science, its acceptance in our criminal system and our inherent determination to get it right, a conviction across a broad spectrum of felonies may never be final.

According to a New York Times article Wednesday, Bruce Godschalk was arrested and ultimately convicted of a pair of rapes near the City of Brotherly Love back in 1986. He confessed to the crimes shortly after his arrest and even though he recanted his mea culpa, he was convicted. One of the two victims picked his picture out of a mug file -- it was there because of a marijuana bust -- the other victim could make no such ID.

The sentence was 10 to 20 years, so he is still in prison for crimes he says he never committed. How many times have we heard that before?

Now comes the twist.

Godschalk convinced a judge to order a DNA test which he said would prove his innocence. If you remember the DNA thing in the O.J. Simpson trial it was conclusive of his guilt, except for that poem about the gloves. Oh well, that's what juries are there for.

Two experts tested the DNA involved in both rapes, and both concluded that the same person committed both rapes. That evidence was reviewed by other experts who agreed with the finding that, "Both profiles match each other, and can only come from one other person in the world. And that person is not Bruce Godschalk."

No arguing with DNA, not in this world. That's like saying two people can have the same fingerprints, and we know that isn't the case.

Here's a clear-cut case for the prosecutor to dismiss the case, release the prisoner and extend the apologies of the great state of Pennsylvania, right?

Guess again. The prosecutor, Bruce Castor, says "no way" because he believes that Godschalk is guilty and that the DNA tests are flawed. When asked why he believes that in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the controversy, Castor basically says "because I said so."

Now I understand caution and I understand a prosecutor's reluctance and, perhaps, even revulsion at the thought of letting a convicted rapist go free. But this is a case in which the conviction may be sound but it is against the wrong man! And that our criminal system cannot abide.

It is well settled that DNA "fingerprints" are foolproof and should be accepted as evidence of guilt at criminal trials. The converse, therefore, must also be true: DNA is a foolproof system used to determine innocence. The prosecutor can't have it both ways.

Bruce Godschalk should go free just a soon as his captor, Mr. Castor, rechecks the tests and realizes he convicted the wrong man.

Mr. Godschalk has had to live with his mistake for the past 15 years in prison -- confessing to crimes he didn't commit.

Mr. Castor can easily live with his innocent mistake for the rest of his life -- that's a risk we take with our jury system. Where it gets difficult, though, is when he loses his innocence in a fit of pique and in the face of irrefutable science.

If DNA is good enough to convict it ought to be good enough to acquit.

Let the man go.

archive