How would you reply? The case of Robert Duboise is a prime example of a wrongful conviction that resulted in an exoneration after a careful reexamination. Robert Duboise, who was 18 at the time of his most life changing event, was sentenced to death after being convicted of rape and murder in 1983. It was not until fall of 2020 that was he was exonerated when new DNA evidence discarded Robert Duboise as the attacker of the victim, Barbara Williams. The evidence that was used to incarcerated him consisted on just a testimony and a bite mark that seemed to match Duboise's and nothing more. Duboise, being an innocent 18 year old having his first experience with the criminal justice system, spent 37 years in death row. For 37 years, this innocent man woke up not knowing when he would finally be given an execution date for a crime he was not guilty off. His reputation and life was ruined for almost 4 decades until a nonprofit legal defense organization decided to look into his case and find his exonerating evidence. Thankfully, thanks to our advancements in forensic science it would be highly unlikely that someone would be given such a severe sentence when the convicting "evidence" was one testimony and one piece of unreliable evidence, but is important to point out how different Duboise's case could have concluded if that testimony was not included against his case. After being released and having his name cleared Duboise's only words to the press were, "I just hope these things don't keep happening" (Cassels, 2020). 2.How would you reply? The case of Leonard Mack exemplifies the profound injustices that can arise from reliance on eyewitness testimony. In May 1975, Mack was wrongfully convicted of the rape of a 15-year-old girl in Greenburgh, New York, based largely on the victim's identification during a suggestive police lineup. Despite presenting a strong alibi, Mack was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. Decades later, advancements in DNA testing led to the exoneration of Mack. The re-examination of evidence identified another individual as the perpetrator, who subsequently confessed to the crime. This case just shows the need for reform in eyewitness identification