The 2015 murder of Clauddine “Dee Dee” Blanchard captivated the nation, not only for its gruesome nature but also for the complex relationship between Dee Dee and her daughter, Gypsy Rose Blanchard, and Gypsy’s boyfriend, Nicholas Godejohn. Nicholas Godejohn was ultimately sentenced to life in prison for the first-degree murder of Dee Dee, while Gypsy Rose received a significantly shorter sentence of 10 years for second-degree murder. This disparity in sentencing raises a critical question: why did Nick Godejohn get life and Gypsy didn’t?
This article delves into the intricacies of the case, examining the legal proceedings, the arguments presented, and the factors that led to such different outcomes for the two individuals involved in Dee Dee Blanchard’s death. We will explore the trial of Nicholas Godejohn, his appeals for a new trial based on ineffective counsel, and contrast his situation with that of Gypsy Rose Blanchard to understand the nuances of this perplexing case.
The Trial and Conviction of Nicholas Godejohn
Nicholas Godejohn, then 32, faced trial in 2018 for first-degree murder and armed criminal action for the stabbing death of Dee Dee Blanchard. The prosecution successfully argued that Godejohn meticulously planned the murder with Gypsy Rose and carried it out. Despite the defense’s attempts to highlight Godejohn’s autism spectrum disorder as a mitigating factor impacting his capacity for deliberation, the jury found him guilty of first-degree murder. He was subsequently sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 25 years for armed criminal action.
Nicholas Godejohn attending a hearing, reflecting on his legal battles and the severity of his sentence.
Key arguments during Godejohn’s trial revolved around his intent and level of premeditation. While the defense presented evidence of his autism, suggesting diminished capacity, the prosecution emphasized the planning involved in the murder, including communication between Godejohn and Gypsy leading up to the event, and Godejohn’s physical act of killing Dee Dee. This focus on premeditation and the act itself was crucial in securing the first-degree murder conviction.
Gypsy Rose Blanchard’s Plea Deal and Sentence
In stark contrast to Godejohn’s life sentence, Gypsy Rose Blanchard, Dee Dee’s daughter, received a significantly lighter sentence. Facing charges for her role in the murder, Gypsy entered a plea deal for second-degree murder. This plea bargain resulted in a 10-year prison sentence.
Gypsy Rose Blanchard in court, highlighting the different legal path and sentencing outcome she experienced compared to Nicholas Godejohn.
Several factors contributed to this disparity. Perhaps the most significant was Gypsy’s history as a victim of Munchausen by proxy, inflicted by her mother, Dee Dee. This severe and prolonged abuse was considered a substantial mitigating circumstance. Gypsy had lived her entire life under Dee Dee’s control, subjected to unnecessary medical procedures and isolation, leading to a desperate desire to escape. This context heavily influenced the public perception and the legal approach to her case.
Furthermore, Gypsy did not physically commit the murder. While she was undeniably involved in planning Dee Dee’s death, it was Godejohn who carried out the act. Her role, though significant, was seen as less direct in the actual killing. The plea deal for second-degree murder acknowledged her involvement while also recognizing the extenuating circumstances of her abuse.
Why the Sentencing Disparity? Key Differentiating Factors
Several key factors explain why Nick Godejohn received a life sentence while Gypsy Rose Blanchard received a 10-year sentence:
-
Degree of Involvement in the Act: Godejohn was the physical perpetrator of the murder, traveling to Missouri and stabbing Dee Dee Blanchard. Gypsy, while instrumental in planning the murder, was not physically present during the act. The legal system often distinguishes between those who plan and those who execute violent crimes, especially in sentencing severity.
-
Mitigating Circumstances: Abuse and Munchausen by Proxy: Gypsy Rose Blanchard was a victim of severe, long-term abuse. The Munchausen by proxy inflicted by Dee Dee was a critical factor in understanding Gypsy’s motivations and actions. This history of abuse resonated with the public and likely influenced the prosecution’s willingness to offer a plea deal and the judge’s sentencing decision. Godejohn, while presented as having autism, did not have a comparable history of victimization that directly contributed to the crime in the same way.
-
Legal Strategy: Trial vs. Plea Deal: Godejohn chose to go to trial, where he was convicted of the most serious charge – first-degree murder. Gypsy Rose, on the other hand, accepted a plea deal for second-degree murder. Plea deals often result in reduced sentences in exchange for avoiding a potentially lengthy and costly trial and guaranteeing a conviction. Godejohn’s decision to go to trial, and the subsequent jury verdict, locked him into a much harsher sentencing range.
-
Perception of Mastermind vs. Follower: While evidence suggests Gypsy initiated the plan, Godejohn, as the physically stronger and older individual who traveled to commit the act, may have been perceived as the more culpable party in the eyes of the jury. The prosecution successfully portrayed him as a willing participant who understood the gravity of his actions, despite the defense’s arguments about his autism.
Godejohn’s Appeal and Claims of Ineffective Counsel
Years after his conviction, Nicholas Godejohn is seeking a new trial, arguing that he received ineffective counsel during his initial trial. His new legal team presented evidence in court, claiming his original attorneys failed in several critical areas:
-
Failure to Request Change of Venue: The defense attorneys did not request a change of venue despite extensive local and national media coverage of the case, raising concerns about seating an impartial jury. The argument is that the intense media scrutiny could have prejudiced potential jurors against Godejohn.
-
Insufficient Exploration of Diminished Capacity: Godejohn’s lawyers are accused of not adequately investigating and presenting evidence related to his autism and its potential impact on his capacity for deliberation and understanding the implications of his actions. They are arguing that more witnesses, including family members, should have been called to testify to the severity of his autism.
-
Failure to Highlight Gypsy’s Role: Godejohn’s new attorneys contend that the original defense team did not sufficiently emphasize evidence suggesting Gypsy Rose was the primary planner and instigator of the murder, and that Godejohn was largely acting at her behest. They presented videos and other evidence not shown at the original trial to support this claim, aiming to shift the perception of Godejohn as merely carrying out Gypsy’s wishes.
Evidence being reviewed during Nicholas Godejohn’s post-conviction relief hearing, focusing on the arguments of ineffective counsel.
The outcome of Godejohn’s appeal remains uncertain. If the judge grants a new trial, it would reopen the legal proceedings and potentially offer Godejohn a chance at a different outcome. However, the prosecution maintains that there was substantial evidence supporting the first-degree murder conviction, and that Godejohn’s original defense was adequate.
Conclusion: A Complex Case of Justice and Disparity
The question of why did Nick Godejohn get life and Gypsy didn’t is not easily answered. The sentencing disparity reflects the complex interplay of legal strategies, mitigating circumstances, and public perception in the Dee Dee Blanchard murder case. Gypsy Rose Blanchard’s history of abuse and her plea deal for second-degree murder resulted in a significantly shorter sentence. Nicholas Godejohn, as the one who physically committed the murder and who was convicted of first-degree murder after a trial, faced the maximum penalty.
His current appeal highlights the ongoing legal battles and the lingering questions about the fairness of his trial. Whether Godejohn will be granted a new trial and if that will lead to a different sentence remains to be seen. The case continues to be a stark reminder of the complexities of criminal justice and the factors that contribute to vastly different outcomes for individuals involved in the same crime. The differing sentences for Nick Godejohn and Gypsy Rose Blanchard underscore the critical role of context, legal maneuvering, and individual circumstances in shaping the consequences within the legal system.
