Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Interview with Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld

Aired February 06, 2002 - 14:10   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: In Philadelphia attorneys are fighting to free a man who has been jailed for raping two women 15 years ago. they say that new DNA tests prove without a shadow of a doubt the man is innocent. However the prosecutor in the case is not convinced. He confirms the test results are conclusive, however he says he can't discount other evidence, including a taped confession.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRUCE CASTOR JR., DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: But what I won't do is rush to make a decision on a very, important thing, and potentially release a rapist out into Montgomery County when I am not sure that the conviction was improper. And I am astounded that the other side has not agreed to my request for a hearing in two or three weeks to give us time to review the results, and conduct the additional testing that -- to make the issue certain.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: The legal team representing the jailed man are with the Innocence Project, which has secured the release of dozens of people using DNA evidence, and we have heard from the prosecutor. Now, let's hear from that defense team. Joining us now are Peter Neufeld and Barry Sheck. The are with the Innocence Project, as we said. And they serve as attorneys for the defendant in the Philadelphia case, and I am sure you recognize the names from the famous O.J. case.

I am glad to have you folks back with us, gentlemen. Welcome back. Let's begin with you. As I understand it, Peter, you are actually the attorney in this case and Barry, you are assisting; is that it?

PETER NEUFELD, CODIRECTOR, THE INNOCENCE PROJECT: Barry and I have been working on the case from the beginning. We're the codirectors of the project. And we do all these cases together.

HARRIS: Gotcha. Let's start off first of all with the prosecutor's request just a second ago. What's wrong with what he suggests about just waiting for a couple of weeks for a hearing on this matter, letting a judge decide whether or not they should proceed?

BARRY SCHECK, CODIRECTOR, THE INNOCENCE PROJECT: Well, the problem is, is that he's had these results for a while. And we've been litigating this for a long time and it is perfectly evident that DNA that's found in the carpet, where his office introduced it into evidence, where they said here's semen on the carpet from rape victim No. 1, and then there are swabs from rape victim No. 2, rapes that where the same housing complex, rapes that everybody has always agreed were related to each other, done by the same person, the same M.O.

Now DNA shows yes, the same person committed both of those crimes but that person isn't Bruce Godchalk (ph). What every other prosecutor does in these circumstances is you immediately put this DNA profile into our national databank. You see if you can identify the person who really committed the crime, and you go into court and you say, OK, we are going to let this man out of jail, he has been there for 15 years and if he is really confused about the significance of this, he can always bring him back and try to try him again in light of new DNA evidence.

He's asking for a delay to do another test that his lab has already done to take yet another blood sample from Godchalk, where they have already taken two. It's ridiculous.

HARRIS: And as I understand it -- if either of you gentlemen can tell me and confirm this -- these results have been confirmed by both sides and by independent labs as well on what, like four or five or six different times now?

NEUFELD: Yes, Leon. There are two separate laboratories on opposite coasts; one retained by the defense, one retained by the prosecutor. And both laboratories came to the same result. And both laboratories said that not only that it was done by one person, but that the likelihood that it could be anyone else by coincidence or what have you, is one and 120 million in the Caucasian population.

So, it's not like, well, maybe the victim's husband and a friend of the second victim had the same DNA profile here. Things like that just don't happen. So there's no other explanation. The other thing is, which is most alarming, is that the district attorney is giving out misinformation to the press and public right now. And it seems to be deliberately confusing them.

HARRIS: What kind of misinformation?

NEUFELD: For instance, well, he made the suggestion that perhaps someone could have sneezed in the one victim's apartment in July of '86 and then maybe sneezed in the second victim's apartment in September. What we talk about here is DNA from semen. The test that the two laboratories conducted here, Leon, are very specific to semen DNA, which tests differently than all other DNA.

So, the laboratories were able to determine that it in fact came from semen. So, the DNA couldn't be left there by touching the floor or touching a sheet, or bleeding on a sheet, or spitting. It had to be left by semen and spermatozoa (ph).

HARRIS: How about the fact that this man did confess to this crime, and the fact that the prosecutor in this case, Bruce Castor is saying that one of the reasons why he wants this delay is because the -- this man -- Mr. Godschalk actually did confess to the crime in this case. If that's the case, shouldn't the confession weigh more than any testing?

SCHECK: Well, no. As a matter of fact, the confession is now obviously in doubt, in light of the testing. Because here we are talking about scientific facts. It's impossible that he's the rapist because it is not his semen in both different locations and there's things we can do to find out the real rapist, but the investigation that ought to be conducted is, OK, how did Mr. Godschalk wind up giving a confession to a crime he didn't commit that -- to details that were only known by the victims and the police officer?

Yes there should be an investigation of that. But it probably shouldn't be conducted at this point by Mr. Castor's office. It should be conducted by somebody independent of them, so they can find out whether or not Mr. Godschalk's claims that he was coerced and fed details of this confession is true.

Certainly the DNA results command that kind of inquiry be undertaken.

HARRIS: Well, if these results then are so unequivocal and are so clear-cut here, why isn't it not possible for then for a judge -- for you to just take this case to a judge and just go over the head of this prosecutor and have a judge actually release this man from prison?

NEUFELD: We've done exactly that. Our cocounsel here in Philadelphia, David Rodowski (ph) , filed papers with the state court saying that as a result of the two DNA labs exonerating this man, including the DA's own DNA lab, that he should be released immediately.

The prosecutor has gone into court and said, wait, wait, wait, let's not have a hearing so quick. I want to do more investigations. We are saying that every additional day that you keep this man locked up, who has been in prison for 15 years, when all the laboratories agree that this man is innocent, is nothing but an act of cruelty on the part of the district attorney.

HARRIS: Let me ask you one final question. Is there any possibility here that one reason why there is some reticence about revisiting this with the court like that and turning this man free, because if you do turn him free that means that someone in the police department basically broke the law by coercing this confession and that perhaps there was a coverup here between the prosecuting attorney's office and maybe the police?

let sense about revisiting with the court like this and turning this man free because if you turn free that means someone in the police department basically broke the law by coercing this confession and that perhaps cover a here wean -- between the prosecutor's attorney's office and the police.

SCHECK: That is a very good question, Leon. We think that an independent agency, maybe the attorney general in this state should definitely look into it. And the key point here that really should be emphasized, you know, we took us years to get access to this evidence. We had to go to a federal judge here, who is hero in this whole matter, Judge Wiener (ph) , using a civil rights action to get access to the evidence because they were resisting it at every step of the way. There's no statute yet here in the state of Pennsylvania that gives you post conviction access to DNA evidence to prove your innocence.

We don't have passage yet of the innocence protection act in Congress that would mandate this for every state. This is very important legislation. Because I guarantee, Leon, not only will one day Bruce Godchalk free here, but if we put this DNA profile on the databank we are going to find the person who really committed the crime.

HARRIS: And that should be what this whole investigation. Thanks very much. We will be watching. We want to see how this turns out now that you have our attention.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com