State of West Virginia v. Gerald Wayne Davis

Charleston, West Virginia defendant was charged with sexual assault and kidnapping.



Gerald Wayne Davis, age 26, and, his father Dewey Davis, were charged with abducting, sexually abusing and sexually assaulting a woman.





The Supreme Court of Appeals for West Virginia described the case against Davis as follows:



"The charges against the appellant arose primarily from the statements of 21-year-old E.W., a long-time friend of the appellant's family. E.W. stated that at about 10:15 p.m. on the night of February 18, 1986, she had gone alone to the appellant's St. Albans home to retrieve laundry she had left there earlier in the evening. According to E.W.'s statements, the appellant [180 W.Va. 359] had followed her to the laundry room and asked her to come to his bedroom. When she refused, the appellant grabbed her by the shoulder and pulled her backwards towards the bedroom. E.W. managed to escape and ran first to the kitchen, where she attempted unsuccessfully to open the back door, and then to the living room, where she appealed in vain to the appellant's father for help. When the appellant entered the living room, E.W. threw a glass of water at him. The appellant then grabbed E.W. by the hair and dragged her into the dining room where he struck her and began choking her. He then pulled E.W. into the bedroom and threw her on the bed. A struggle ensued, during which the appellant pulled down E.W.'s jeans and panties. The appellant announced that he intended to have anal intercourse with her. When E.W. protested, the appellant forced her to touch his penis. Then, over E.W.'s protests, the appellant had vaginal intercourse with her while his father watched.



E.W. stated that when the appellant and his father left her alone in the bedroom, she escaped and ran to the home of the appellant's next-door neighbor, JoAnna Watson. Although E.W. was visibly distressed and reported that the appellant had sexually assaulted her, Mrs. Watson and her daughter, Debby King, refused to help her. E.W. then drove her car, on which one of the rear tires had been slashed, about 1/4 of a mile to the home of a friend, Rose Shaffer. Mrs. Shaffer noted that E.W. was crying hysterically, that she had marks on her face and throat, that her clothes were in disarray and that she was wearing only one shoe and no jacket. When E.W. told her that she had been sexually assaulted by the appellant, Mrs. Shaffer called the police. Sheriff's deputies took a statement from E.W. and transported her to Charleston Area Medical Center for treatment. E.W. was found to have suffered a cut lip and abrasions to the face and vulva. Her clothes were taken by the police for analysis, and seminal fluid was found on her panties.



The following day sheriff's deputies went to the appellant's home to execute arrest and search warrants. The police found E.W.'s missing shoe and jacket in her laundry basket on the porch. They also seized sheets and towels found on the appellant's bed and articles of his clothing, all of which were subsequently found to contain seminal fluid stains.



At the May 1986 term of the Kanawha County Grand Jury, an indictment was returned charging the appellant with abduction with intent to defile, in violation of W.Va.Code § 61-2-14 (1984 Replacement Vol.); 1 sexual abuse in the first degree, in violation of W.Va.Code § 61-8B-7 (1984 Replacement Vol.); 2 and sexual assault in the second degree, in violation of W.Va.Code § 61-8B-4 (1984 Replacement Vol.). 3 At trial, conducted before a jury on July 21 and 22, 1986 in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, the appellant admitted that E.W. was at his home on the night in question but denied that he had even touched her. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all three charges. By order entered October 17, 1986, the court sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for not less than three nor more than ten years upon the abduction conviction, not less than one nor more than five years upon the sexual abuse conviction and not less than

ten nor more than twenty years upon the sexual assault conviction. The court ordered the three sentences to run consecutively."



See: 376 S.E.ed, 563, 180 W.Va. 357 (1988)



The State relied on the testimony of the victim and forensic analyst Fred Zain who wrongfully testified that Gerald could have been the source of semen could have been Defendant's which it could not have been. Zain was lying.

Defendants were found guilty.



Davis was convicted because the State introduced false or misleading froensic evidence and false accusations by the alleged victim. Fred Zain lied about the result of his "forensic analyst" of the physical evidence.



Davis filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a new trial was ordered.



The Superior Corut of West Virginia granted access to the evidence so that retesting could be conducted by the Center for Blood Research. Testing failed to find Davis' DNA on any of the samples. A examination of testing of Davis' bed sheets and underwear failed to find any the woman's DNA.



He was released under home confinement in 1994.



A second trial resulted in a not guilty verdict in 1995.



Davis sued Zain and others on civil rights violation theories, which was settled for an undisclosed sum.



Eventually, Davis received $500,000 in compensation frmo the West Virginia Board of Risk and Insurance Management.

DNA testing has revolutionized the landscape of sexual assault cases, both in terms of investigation and adjudication. Its impact has been profound, bringing about positive changes for survivors and justice systems alike. Here's a closer look:

Increased Accuracy and Identification:

DNA evidence provides incontrovertible proof of biological material transfer, significantly improving the accuracy of investigations and reducing wrongful convictions.

Unidentified offenders can be linked to crimes through DNA databases, leading to closure for survivors and communities, and potentially preventing future assaults.

Shifting Power Dynamics:

The burden of proof in sexual assault cases often falls on survivors, but DNA evidence can shift this dynamic by providing objective evidence to substantiate claims.

This can empower survivors to come forward and seek justice, knowing their experiences are supported by concrete evidence.

Strengthening Prosecutions and Outcomes:

Strong DNA evidence can significantly strengthen the prosecution's case, leading to higher conviction rates for perpetrators.

This can deter future perpetrators, promote accountability, and potentially offer a sense of justice for survivors.

Supporting Exonerations and Addressing Wrongful Convictions:

DNA testing has played a crucial role in exonerating individuals wrongly convicted of sexual assault, offering them freedom and a chance to rebuild their lives.

This highlights the importance of DNA testing in preventing and correcting miscarriages of justice.

Challenges and Ongoing Discussions:

Despite its advancements, DNA testing isn't a silver bullet. Issues like backlogs, complex sample analysis, and privacy concerns require ongoing discussion and improvement.

Additionally, supporting survivors throughout the process, regardless of the DNA evidence outcome, remains crucial.

The impact of DNA testing on sexual assault cases is undeniable. It has enhanced investigations, strengthened prosecutions, and offered hope for justice and closure. However, continuous efforts are needed to address existing challenges and ensure its ethical and effective use in support of survivors.