In June of 1993, Kirk Bloodsworth’s case became the first capital conviction in the United States to be overturned as a result of DNA testing. On July 25, 1984, a nine-year-old girl was found dead in a wooded area. She had been beaten with a rock, sexually assaulted, and strangled. An honorably discharged former Marine and Maryland resident, Bloodsworth was convicted of sexual assault, rape, and first-degree premeditated murder. He was convicted and sentenced to death on March 8, 1985. The ruling was appealed a year later on the grounds that evidence was withheld at trial, and Bloodsworth received a new trial. He was found guilty again and sentenced to two consecutive life terms.
After years of fighting for a DNA test, evidence from the crime scene was sent to a lab for testing. Final reports from state and federal labs concluded that Bloodsworth’s DNA did not match any of the evidence received for testing. On June 28, 1993, a Baltimore County circuit judge ordered Bloodsworth released from prison due to the results of his DNA test, and in December 1993, Maryland’s governor pardoned Bloodsworth.
By the time of his release, Bloodsworth served almost nine years in prison, including two on death row for a crime he did not commit.
On September 5, 2003, almost a decade later, Bloodsworth heard the news he had been waiting to hear for 20 years: the state of Maryland finally charged someone with the rape and murder of young Dawn Hamilton after matching DNA evidence with information from state and federal databases. The evidence matched the DNA of a man named Kimberly Shay Ruffner, who had been arrested on charges of robbery and attempted rape and murder a few weeks after Bloodsworth’s arrest in 1984. He pled guilty on May 20, 2004 to the murder for which Bloodsworth had been wrongfully convicted.
Today, Bloodsworth is involved in efforts for criminal justice reform and is an ardent supporter of the Innocence Protection Act (IPA). The IPA, which was signed into law by President Bush on October 30, 2004 as part of the larger Justice for All Act of 2004, established the “Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program,” which will help states defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing.
Over the years, Bloodsworth has been a national spokesperson educating the public on issues surrounding wrongful convictions and innocence and helping other wrongfully convic
ted death row exonerees readjust to society.
Prosecutor’s Evidence at Trial
The prosecution based its case on several points:
· An anonymous caller tipped police that Bloodsworth had been seen with the girl earlier in the day.
· A witness identified Bloodsworth from a police sketch compiled by five witnesses.
· The five witnesses testified that they had seen Bloodsworth with the little girl.
· Bloodsworth had told acquaintances he had done something “terrible” that day that would affect his marriage.
· In his first police interrogation, Bloodsworth mentioned a “bloody rock,” even though no weapons were known of at the time.
Testimony was given that a shoe impression found near the victim’s body was made by a shoe that matched Bloodsworth’s size.
Post-Conviction Challenges
In 1986 Bloodsworth’s attorney filed an appeal contending the following:
- Bloodsworth mentioned the bloody rock because the police had one on the table next to him while they interrogated him.
- The “terrible” thing mentioned to acquaintances was that he had failed to buy his wife dinner as he had promised.
- Police withheld information from defense attorneys relating to the possibility of another suspect.
The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned Bloodsworth’s conviction in July 1986 because of the withheld information. He was retried, and a jury convicted him a second time. This time, Bloodsworth was sentenced to two consecutive life terms.
After an appeal of the second conviction was denied, Bloodsworth’s lawyer moved to have the evidence released for more sophisticated testing than was available at the time of trial. The prosecution agreed. In April 1992, the victim’s panties and shorts, a stick found near the murder scene, reference blood samples from Bloodsworth and the victim, and an autopsy slide were sent to Forensic Science Associates (FSA) for Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing.
DNA Results
The FSA report, issued on May 17, 1993, stated that semen on the autopsy slide was insufficient for testing. It also stated that a small semen stain had been found on the panties.
The report indicated that the majority of DNA associated with the epithelial fraction had the same genotype as the semen due to the low level of epithelial cells present in the stain. It was an expected result, according to the report. Finally, the report concluded that Bloodsworth’s DNA did not match any of the evidence received for testing. FSA did, however, request a fresh sample of Bloodsworth’s blood for retesting in accord with questions about proper labeling on the original sample.
On June 3, 1993, FSA issued a second report that stated its findings regarding Bloodsworth’s DNA were replicated and that he could not be responsible.
On June 25, 1993, the FBI conducted its own test of the evidence and discovered the same results as FSA. In Maryland, new evidence can be presented no later than one year after the final appeal. Prosecutors joined a petition with Bloodsworth’s attorneys to grant Bloodsworth a pardon. A Baltimore County circuit judge ordered Bloodsworth released from prison on June 28, 1993. Maryland’s governor pardoned Bloodsworth in December 1993. Bloodsworth served almost nine years of the second sentence, including two years on death row.
Loyalists will accept a less powerful 2.5-liter G-Series in the model range, but how will they embrace a front-wheel drive model from Nissan’s upscale – and enthusiast targeted – Infiniti brand? 
Whenever I coach people in improving their love life, I always start by asking folks what they are looking for in a longterm partner. Everyone gives me kinda the same list. They want someone:
