The victim in this case was attacked by two men as she walked to her car. The first assailant, later identified as Frederick Daye, pushed her into the car and let another man into the back of the car. The perpetrators stole her jewelry and then raped her, eventually leaving the victim on the street and stealing her car.

The victim made an identification of Daye from a photo lineup. She and a witness then identified him in a lineup. The other defendant in the case was tried in a separate trial and pled the Fifth Amendment when called on to testify at Daye's trial. Additional evidence used at trial was a match by conventional serology between Daye's blood type and a semen stain, as well as the false information he gave police upon arrest. Daye's defense was eyewitness misidentification.

In 1990, the other defendant made a statement revealing that Daye was not involved in the crime. A public defender was appointed to investigate the statement. When the public defender failed to investigate, Appellate Defenders, Incorporated, helped Daye file a motion that was later denied. ADI later took over the case.

Daye's new counsel stopped the destruction of the physical evidence and filed for an evidentiary hearing. Though the court refused to hear the evidentiary claims, Daye was allotted funds to pursue DNA testing as well as granted a release of the evidence.

Cellmark Diagnostics performed testing in 1994. Daye was excluded as the source of spermatozoa found on the victim's pants. Based on the DNA results and the statement of the other defendant, Daye's conviction was overturned in 1994, after he had endured ten years of incarceration.