This paper looks into the case of Brian Banks, an American man who was charged with rape in 2002, at the age of 16, and was sent to prison for 6 years. Despite the fact that Banks accepted a plea bargain, he was not guilty of committing a rape; he was proved to be innocent in 2012. In the paper, we will explore which institutions were involved in the trial. We will also investigate one of the key aspects of the case, the negligence of evidence, and see if the plea bargain Banks made helped to serve justice. The case of Brian Banks that led to his imprisoning was processed in 2003. Banks was charged with “forcible rape, forcible sodomy, and kidnapping” of Wanetta Gibson by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (LADA) on January 22, 2003 (California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, 2015, p. 2). The alleged crime was said to happen in a local school in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, CA. The LADA is the institution that is responsible for prosecuting criminals in 78 out of the 88 cities of the county, which includes Long Beach; this is why the LADA worked with the case (Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office n.d.). Brian Banks was then sentenced to six years in prison. Some years after Banks was released, Wanetta Gibson admitted that she fabricated the story, and Banks’ conviction was reversed; the reversal was accomplished by the Judge of Los Angeles Superior Court, Mark C. Kim, in 2012, after Banks “filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the California Superior Court” in 2011 (California Innocence Project n.d., para. 4-5). It is within the competence of Superior Courts to consider Habeas Corpus applications, which is why the application was made for, and the decision was made by this court (“Habeas Corpus”, 2014, p. 2). During the trial in 2003, Brian Banks was facing 41-years to life imprisonment for his crime (which he did not commit). The teenager (Banks was 17 at the time) was offered to accept a number of plea deals, according to which he was to be incarcerated for 25, 18, and 9 years (Myers, 2015, para. 14, 16). He rejected all the three, and was finally offered to accept another bargain and plead guilty to rape, on which condition the rest of the charges would be canceled. The boy was to be professionally observed and then get either probation or imprisonment of 3 or 6 years. The shocked defendant, being reassured by his lawyer that he would only receive probation or no more than 3 years, accepted the deal; but he ended up being sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment (Myers, 2015, para. 15; California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, 2015, p. 9). A key aspect of the case is the lack of proper investigation and the negligence of evidence. It is highlighted that the defendant and the victim indeed had some intimate contact, but it was entirely consensual (according to Wanetta’s later confession in 2011) and not involved any penetration; the alleged victim never tried to stop the defendant (California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, 2015, p.8-9, 11). Still, the defendant was charged with rape involving penetration and ejaculation. Still, the conducted tests found n