Man Gets Millions After DNA Clears Him Of Rape

Associated Press ^ | 03/22/2004 | AP Staff

[Therapist]

KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa. -- A man who served 15 years in prison for rape -- before DNA testing cleared him -- is getting more than $2 million.

Bruce Godschalk, who is now 44 years old, previously agreed to accept $740,000 from Montgomery County, Pa.

Now, Upper Merion Township will to give him an additional $1.6 million.

Township officials said they still don't think they did anything wrong -- but one official said they asked themselves what 15 years of a man's life was worth.

Godschalk filed his lawsuit in September 2002, seven months after he left prison. He said two detectives tricked and coerced him into confessing.

[Therapist]

Would you agree to be in prison for 15 years in order to get $2,340,000 tax free? I think not.

[Riley]

Not as an intentional trade, no. But people who get cleared after doing a lot of time usually just get an "Oops, sorry. Seeya." so I am glad he'll be getting a bit of a stake.

If the system screws up and sticks the wrong man in the clink for fifteen years, he ought to get something for it.

[anonymous_user]

"Township officials said they still don't think they did anything wrong"

Trial, arrest and conviction: $100,000
15 years incarceration (conservatively): $500,000.
Restitution for depriving a man of his freedom for 15 years: $2,000,000

Elected officials wasting million in taxpayer dollars and depriving people of their rights, then claiming "I don't think we did anything wrong?"

Priceless.

[sharktrager]

Beats Great Britain, where they may start to charge those who are imprisoned improperly for the cost of their room and board.

[international american]

Great shot!!:)

[Therapist]

LOL!

How about suing the prison for the fudge packing he received? Isn't that rape, too?

[Dr. Frank fan]

It sure would have been nice if the story had contained more details about his original conviction and the evidence used.

I am skeptical about all these cases where DNA is said to "clear" someone of some crime. The fact that a semen sample taken from a rape victim comes from person X does not NECESSARILY "prove" that person Y didn't rape her. (And let's not even get into how in the world DNA is used to clear murderers...?!?)

Don't get me wrong, in most or perhaps all of these cases, setting a convict free based on these DNA results is probably the right thing to do. One can certainly envision a weak rape case where her testimony against the defendant + "..and she had semen inside her" was 99% of the case against that defendant. Clearly, if that semen inside her was someone else's, but the jury didn't know that and reasonably enough assumed it to be the defendant's, a big part of the case vanishes (EVEN IF HE REALLY RAPED HER), and therefore overturning the conviction can be entirely appropriate (EVEN IF HE'S GUILTY AS HELL).

Just, let's not pretend that a case being overturned by DNA is necessarily the same thing as a convict being proven not to have done the crime. (And please nobody come back to me with "innocent until proven guilty". I KNOW and AGREE that such a person should be considered "innocent" under the the eyes of the law. I'm just reminding that sometimes "innocent" doesn't mean "didn't do it".)

[Hank Rearden]

I bet not a penny comes directly from the wallets of those who perpetrated the fraud on this guy.

Taxpayers eat it, again.

[nightdriver]

"He said two detectives tricked and coerced him into confessing."

And these two turkey detectives get off scot free?

They should have their lungs torn out.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The two detectives who coerced and tricked a confession out of him ought to have to spend an equal amount of time in jail.

[Therapist]

Or a few nights with the falsely accused perp's butt buddies.

[anonymous_user]

And these two turkey detectives get off scot free?

Detectives from over fifteen years ago? They're probably retired and enjoying their city pensions.

[JimRed]

I'm just reminding that sometimes "innocent" doesn't mean "didn't do it".

That's why I've always thought we should have three verdict choices: Guilty (proven to have done it), not guilty (not proven to have done it) and innocent (proven NOT to have done it).

[squidly]

Would you agree to be in prison for 15 years in order to get $2,340,000 tax free?

Maybe two years, but definitely not fifteen.

[sourcery]

By 'not doing anything wrong,' the bueaucrats simply mean they followed proper procedure. But there's a more appropriate definition of 'doing wrong,' and by that definition they are clearly wrongdoers. In a civil action for damages, neither bad intent nor failure to follow proper procedure have any bearing whatsoever: either you violated someone else's rights, or you didn't. Nothing else matters.

[anonymous_user]

How about suing the prison for the fudge packing he received? Isn't that rape, too?

Isn't the $365 a day he got paid for 15 years of that enough? *shudder*