The criminal justice system is not perfect. Throughout the process, many mistakes can occur that can lead to the incarceration of an innocent person. There are examples of this in the case of Gerald Wayne Davis. Erroneous eyewitnesses and double jeopardy are two of the errors that will be examined in this case. The focus is the use of unreliable scientific evidence. In the past, non-DNA tests were used to prove guilt or innocence. These tests can be inconclusive and can be used to mislead a jury. Today there is DNA testing, a more exact testing method, which can prove or disprove a person's connection to a crime. Whether a person was convicted due to false eyewitness statements or science today there is a test that can reverse the injustice suffered by the accused. It is important that these tests are administered before another innocent person dies in prison. On February 18, 1986, Gerald Wayne Davis was accused of raping a family friend while she was at her home doing laundry (Connors, Lundregan, Miller & McEwen, 1996). The only witnesses to this alleged crime were Gerald Davis, his father, the victim (Connors, 1996). The victim left the defendant's house and went to a friend's house and reported the details of what had happened (State v. Davis, 1988). The friend called the police and the victim was taken to a medical center for tests; she had a cut lip, abrasions on her face and genital area, there was semen on her panties, and she was missing a shoe and jacket (State v. Davis, 1988). Based on the victim's account, police went to Davis' home where they found the victim's missing shoe, his jacket; they also found sheets, towels and clothes belonging to the accused which showed... in the center of the paper... gy. Retrieved November 6, 2011, from USA.gov website: http://www.dna.gov/Innocence project. (n.d.). Retrieved November 6, 2011, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.phpLectric Law Library. (2011). Habeas corpus. Retrieved November 28, 2011, from http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm Making Jurors the “Experts”: The Case for Jury Instructions for Eyewitness Identification. (2011, March). Boston College Law Review, 52(2), 651-693. Retrieved from EBSCOhostMartin Berry, S. (n.d.). When experts lie. Retrieved November 6, 2011, from Truthinjustice.org website: http://truthinjustice.org/expertslie.htmState v. Davis, No. 17915 (Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, December 14, 1988) (LEAGLE).Wiseman, S. (2010, Spring). Innocence after death. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 60(3), 687-750. Retrieved from EBSCOhost