| First Name | Dewey |
| Last Name | Davis |
| Year of Conviction | 1987 |
| Year of Exoneration | 1995 |
| State of Conviction | West Virginia |
| Trial, Bench Trial, or Guilty Plea | Trial |
| Type of Crime | Rape |
| Death Sentence | No |
| Gender of Exoneree | Male |
| Race of exoneree | White |
| Juvenile | No |
| Type of Innocence Defense |
|
| Description / Quotes from Testimony Concerning Defense | ● Four witnesses testified that defendant was drunk and nonfunctional on the night of the crime. |
| Did the defendant testify at trial? | Yes |
| Quotes from Exoneree Testimony | “A: …[The victim] has been aroundme drunk, sober, and whatever all through her life and she’s also been respected. Q: Can you think of any reason then why she would say in open court, point to you and say you are the man that sat and watched her while she was raped, and begged you for help, and you said, “No, I can’t help you. I ain’t your uncle”? A: I can’t figure why she said that.” |
| Types of evidence at trial |
|
| Type of Forensic Evidence |
|
| Types of Flawed Forensics |
|
| Reason why invalid | (1), (2) Masking and Degradation used to Ignore Exclusion |
| Brief Quote / Description of Testimony | The victim and Davis were both O secretors and were both PGM 2+1+. The stain analyzed exhibited A blood group substances, inconsistent with both the victim and Davis. The analyst testified: “The A could possibly be a false positive and be due to bacterial contamination because of the condition of the evidence when it was submitted, not so much the way it was submitted, but because of the condition the materials were in and the stains deposited on them.” The analyst not only failed to exclude Davis, but then testified that putting to one side the A, the perp would have to be an O secretor, PGM 2+1+. “What I am saying is that it would be approximately 7 to 8 percent of the general population of West Virginia, and half of that would be approximately three and a half percent of the male population of West Virginia.” However, that O PGM 2+1+ material could have come solely from the victim. |
| Identity of eyewitness |
|
| Suggestive Procedures | No – but Acquaintance |
| Highest level reached | Appeal |
| Claims Raised During All Appeals and Postconviction |
|
| Citations to judicial opinions | State v. Davis, 388 S.E.2d 508 (W.Va. 1989) |