Case Review

KIRK NOBLE BLOODSWORTH

Circumstances Surrounding The Death Of Dawn Hamilton And Arrest Of Kirk Bloodsworth
On 25 July 1984 in Rosedale, Maryland, 9-year-old Dawn Hamilton was playing with her cousin, Lisa. Dawn was spending the summer with her father, who had to work that day, so Dawn was being looked after by her aunt. Dawn was looking for Lisa behind the apartment where she was staying with her father. After stopping to watch two boys fish at the lake behind the apartment, Dawn was approached by a young man who told her that he would help her look for Lisa. The two boys watched Dawn and the stranger enter the woods next to the lake. When Dawn had not returned home three hours later, her friends and relatives launched a search. The police soon discovered her body in the woods where she had last been seen alive. She had been abducted, strangled, sexually molested and beaten to death with a rock. The two boys who had last seen Dawn were taken to the police station where they were questioned and helped produce a composite of the stranger who had taken Dawn into the woods. Several people who were in the area of the lake that morning provided descriptions of the stranger seen with Dawn and their descriptions generally agreed that the culprit was more than six feet tall, thin and had curly blond hair. The composite was publicised and, eventually, someone came forward and suggested that the composite looked like a local man, Kirk Bloodsworth. Bloodsworth was a former marine and discus champion with no criminal record who had followed his fathers profession as a waterman on the eastern shore of Maryland. At the time of Dawn's murder, Bloodsworth had just moved back to the Chesapeake Bay area of Maryland from Baltimore and resumed his work as a commercial fisherman. Detectives took Bloodsworths picture and presented it as part of a photo parade to the two boys who had seen Dawns abductor. One of the boys couldnt pick out anyone from the photo parade. The other boy said that he thought Bloodsworth looked like the man, but that the hair colour was not quite right (Bloodsworth had bright red hair at the time). Nevertheless, police obtained a warrant for Bl oodsworths arrest. On 7 August 1984 police arrested Bloodsworth at his cousins house in Cambridge, Maryland, where Bloodsworth was staying due to marital problems with his now ex-wife. However, Bloodsworth had not told his wife that he planned to leave and so Bloodsworth's wife had filed a missing person's report. The police, therefore, believed that Bloodsworth was staying at his cousin's house in an attempt to move away from the scene of the crime. After the arrest, at an in-person line-up, one of the boys identified a police officer who was filling in the group of suspects. The other boy was unable to identify anyone at all. However, the police believed there was enough evidence to charge Bloodsworth with Dawn's murder.

Details Of The First Trial

Bloodsworth insisted on his innocence throughout his arrest and trial, asserting that no physical evidence linked him to the killing. The first trial took place in Maryland in March 1985 where a jury convicted Bloodsworth of the sexual assault, rape and first degree murder of Dawn Hamilton. Baltimore County Judge J. William Hinkel sentenced Bloodsworth to death.

-1-

During the 1985 trial the prosecution based their case upon several points, first of which were the statements given by the Baltimore County authorities, who were positive that Bloodsworth was the offender. An anonymous caller informed the police that Bloodsworth had been seen with Dawn Hamilton hours before the crime took place. The police sketch (which the authorities believed resembled Bloodsworth) was compiled on the basis of evidence from five witnesses. All five witnesses had further testified at trial to having seen Bloodsworth with Dawn on the day of the crime. Moreover, Bloodsworth lived and worked near the scene of the crime and he was seen frequently walking near the woods. He had fled the area shortly after the crime had taken place. Of particular significance was the fact that during Bloodsworth's first police interrogation he mentioned a 'bloody rock' that was later found to be the murder weapon. According to the authorities, the weapon was not public knowledge at the time of the interrogation. Robert Lazzaro, one of the two prosecutors, stated that Bloodsworth testified and acted in a manner that was consistent with someone who was guilty and did not act like someone who was unjustly accused. Bloodsworth had told acquaintances that he had done something terrible that day that would affect his marriage. When questioned, Bloodsworth told Lazzaro that he left the marital home two weeks after the crime due to issues with his wife and wanted to return back to his home town of Cambridge to be with friends and in familiar surroundings, not because he wanted to escape the police. However, Lazzaro was certain that Bloodsworth's features matched those of the man portrayed in the police composite sketch - a tall man with a moustache and flaming red hair. This sketch conflicted with earlier descriptions of the suspect being six feet five inches tall, thin, with curly blonde hair. Bloodsworth at the time was thickwasted but had red hair and was six feet tall. Ann Brobst, who was the second prosecutor during the trial, stated that the girls underwear was found in a tree a few yards away from the crime scene. The underwear was tested for biological evidence. However, with the technology available at time, the FBI determined that the underwear did not hold any significance in determining the outcome of the case. Lastly, testimony was given stating that a shoe impression was found near Dawn Hamiltons body which matched Bloodsworths shoe size. Although, forensic analysts testified that there were no identifying features in the shoe print. In light of the evidence presented at the first trial and the prosecution s submissions, Bloodsworth was convicted and sentenced to death.

Appeal Of The First Conviction

The Court of Appeal of Maryland ordered the conviction of Kirk Bloodsworth for first degree murder, first degree rape and first degree sexual offence to be reversed and for Bloodsworth to be remanded for a new trial. Bloodsworth challenged his conviction on several grounds, however, the appeal succeeded on one specifically; namely the court found a violation of Bloodsworth's rights afforded by the principle established in Brady v. Maryland [373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)], now more commonly known as the Brady Rule: "... the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favourable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." As part of the preparation of the first trial, Bloodsworth made an application for disclosure, requesting, amongst other materials, "the names, addresses, and physical descriptions of any persons other than the defendant who were arrested or otherwise taken into custody by police

-2-

or prosecution officials as a possible suspect in this case in which the defendant is charged." 1 He later requested production by the state of "any and all information of which it is aware including but not limited to line-ups, photo-spreads, or reports to law enforcement authorities, identifying or suggesting that someone other than the Defendant ... was the perpetrator of this crime"2. He also requested the production of the notes of all police officers with respect to the case. During the investigation of the crime, suspicion had been raised by police officers, specifically by Detective Mark Bacon, about a man called Richard Gray. Bloodsworth was concerned that only limited information had been provided by the prosecution in respect of Richard Gray. Gray was discovered by Detective Bacon wandering in the woods in the vicinity of the crime scene shortly before the victim's body was found. He was wearing green camouflage fatigues and carrying a policeman's billy club. Gray also directed the father of the victim to the victim's underwear, which was hanging in the woods from a tree branch. Another pair of female underwear was found in the back seat of Gray's car during a consensual search. Bloodsworth took issue with the state's failure to provide the defence with a copy of a confidential report compiled by Detective Bacon. The report concluded with Bacon's opinion that "Mr. Gray has a great deal more information than he [is] releasing to us at this time, and as a result of this I feel that he should not be overlooked as a possible suspect in the above offence"3. At some stage in the first trial, the existence of this report had been discovered by the defence. The report and the testimony of Detective Bacon were the subject of a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. At the hearing of the motion for a new trial, Detective Bacon was produced as a witness. He stated that Gray was very dirty when he discovered him except for his hands, which were meticulously clean. A red spot that looked like blood was found on Gray's shirt. Gray appeared quite nervous and vomited during or immediately after the search of his car. The underwear found in Gray's car was that of a small girl. Even before the victim was found, Gray referred to her pocketbook he gestured around his left shoulder to indicate that she had a shoulder bag. When the victim's body was found, there was a shoulder bag with the strap over her left shoulder as indicated by Gray. Before the body was found, Gray told Detective Bacon that he hoped "they get him" and "bring him to justice," and that he hated to see people "abuse" little children. Detective Bacon ran a check on Gray and found that he had a criminal conviction for indecent exposure and had been arrested for burglary. The motion for a new trial (applied for during the first trial) was unsuccessful. However, the Court of Appeal of Maryland held that Bloodsworth had been deprived of his right to due process as a result of the original court's decision to deny the motion for a new trial. It concluded that the undisclosed report was sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the original trial and, therefore, Bloodsworth was granted a new trial.

Details Of The Second Trial

There was new evidence introduced during the second trial: 1. "Terrible thing" At his first trial, evidence was introduced that Bloodsworth had confessed he had done something terrible on the day of the murder which would affect his relationship with his wife. Evidence was given during the trial that Bloodsworth said that the "terrible thing" was that he had failed to get a taco salad for his wife and pay bills. During the second
1 2 3

As detailed in Bloodsworth v. State [307 Md. 164 (1986), 512 A.2d 1056, No. 71, September Term, 1985] ibid ibid

-3-

trial, Bloodsworth's mother-in-law testified that the "terrible thing" was that he had stayed out all night, spent his pay cheque and broken a promise to his wife to take her out for dinner. He had also quit his job and did not intend to go home. 2. A Second Suspect? A couple of weeks after Bloodsworth's first conviction, police and prosecutors learned about David Rehill. Hours after Dawn Hamilton's murder, Rehill had shown up at a mental health clinic with fresh scratches on his face and had mentioned to therapists that he was in trouble with a little girl. Rehill closely resembled Bloodsworth, who was already on death row. Six months passed before the police decided to interview Rehill. Nevertheless, they did not place him in an identification parade, nor did they verify his alibi. The doctor at the clinic said that Rehill had a history of violence, was similar in appearance to the police composite of Bloodsworth and that he considered Rehill to be capable of committing the crime. Bloodsworth was notified about Rehill for the first time just before the start of the second trial. 3. Composite Sketch There were two sketches of potential suspects. One was prepared on the basis of the account given to the police by the children who had seen the victim and a man entering the woods. The second was based on evidence provided by Faye McCullough, another eyewitness. At the second trial, Faye McCullough testified on Bloodsworth's behalf that she had seen a male suspect near the crime scene on the day of the murder. She explained that she had helped the detective to prepare a composite of the suspect. However, she said that when the composite was prepared the sketch did not resemble the man she had seen. 4. Richard Gray As part of their investigations, the police had considered whether a man called Richard Gray was connected to the murder. Gray was eventually eliminated from their enquiries. During the trial the state produced photographic evidence of Gray's running shoe to examine the tread on the sole. It did not match the imprint found on the neck of the victim. Kirk Bloodsworth was, again, found guilty of first degree murder, felony murder and first degree sexual offence. This time he is sentenced to two consecutive life terms.

Appeal Of The Second Conviction

On 8 July 1988, the Court of Special Appeals in Maryland heard Bloodsworth's appeal against his conviction arising out of his second trial for first degree murder and first degree rape for which he was sentenced to two consecutive life terms. Bloodsworth set out eleven grounds of appeal: 1 Sufficiency Bloodsworth argued that his convictions were founded on what he considered to be suspect identification evidence. While he was identified as being with Dawn Hamilton, the identification placed him in the vicinity several hours prior to the murder. The appeal court rejected this argument, stating that it was the role of the jury to consider the credibility of the evidence and reach a decision on guilt or innocence and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to have found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes committed.

-4-

The Trial Court Erred In Admitting Testimony From His First Trial Bloodsworth argued that the court should not have admitted evidence from his first trial in which he stated that the "terrible thing" was that he had failed to take his wife a taco salad and to pay bills. At the second trial, his mother-in-law testified that he had told her the terrible thing was that he had stayed out all night, spent his pay cheque and broken a promise to his wife to take her out to dinner. The court held that the evidence should be admissible if it is given voluntarily and evidence is also relevant if it has a tendency to make a material fact more or less probable.

3&4 Suppression Of Exculpatory Evidence and Denial Of Motion For New Trial Bloodsworth argued that the state suppressed evidence of another potential suspect. He was only made aware of this evidence two years after the police were made aware that there was another potential suspect in the case. This evidence was disclosed to Bloodsworth two weeks before the second trial. Bloodsworth was convicted for a second time and at sentencing he asked for a new trial on the basis of this newly discovered evidence. His request was denied on the basis that the information was not "new" as Bloodsworth had known about the existence of the potential suspect before the trial had commenced. The appeal court had no jurisdiction to review the issue of the delay in disclosing the information because Bloodsworth did not make this argument at trial. The appeal court claimed that Bloodsworth had waived his right to appeal on this ground, as he failed to seek postponement of the trial when the information was disclosed. 5 Other Crimes Bloodsworth argued that inadmissible evidence (i.e. that he had bought and smoked drugs around the time of the murder) was admitted in the second trial. The appeal court held that the trial judge had acted appropriately in instructing the jury to disregard these comments and informing them that this information had no relevance on the question of Bloodsworth's guilt or innocence. 6 Hearsay Evidence Bloodsworth argued that testimony made by Detective Capel in relation to eye witness identification was inadmissible hearsay evidence. The appeal court considered this but as all the witnesses concerned were able to attend the trial for cross examination, it was held that the evidence provided by the detective was admissible. 7 Second Composite Sketch There was a second sketch prepared on the basis of Faye McCullock's eye witness account. Bloodsworth wanted to question the detective to find out what had happened to the second sketch. The court did not allow Bloodsworth to pursue that line of questioning initially but did say it would reconsider, once it had heard Faye McCullock, whether it would be appropriate to recall the detective. Bloodsworth did not ask the court to recall the detective and therefore the appeal court could not find any error in the trial court's decision. 8&9 Richard Gray As A Court Witness and Photographic Evidence Of His Shoe Bloodsworth challenged the fact that the court refused to call Gray (another potential suspect) as a hostile witness. The trial court offered Bloodsworth the opportunity to call Gray as a hostile witness himself. At the time Bloodsworth indicated he was happy with that approach. The appeal court went on to hold that the photographic evidence of Gray's shoeprint was relevant - Bloodsworth was trying to suggest that Gray was a potential suspect and therefore the photograph was relevant in considering whether Gray was the killer.

-5-

10

The "Tip-Off" Bloodsworth argued that evidence given by the detective that he was a suspect as a result of a 'tip-off' was inadmissible hearsay evidence. The trial court had considered it admissible as the source of the tip-off was not revealed (an anonymous caller said that the police composite sketch looked like a man he knew named Kirk Bloodsworth) and the appeal court agreed.

11

Improper Closing Argument Bloodsworth believed that the prosecution's closing argument improperly commented on the fact that Bloodsworth did not give evidence at trial. However, the appeal court disagreed and did not consider the comments to constitute an adverse inference on Bloodsworth's failure to testify.

On 11 July 1988 the appeal court denied Bloodsworth's appeal and his convictions were upheld. He continued to serve his consecutive life sentences.

Release Of DNA Evidence / DNA Testing

During the nine years Bloodsworth was in prison, he started to enjoy writing poetry and reading books of all different genres. Of all the books Bloodsworth read during his time in prison, one book in particular, "The Blooding", influenced him to start thinking about DNA evidence. The book, which Bloodsworth read in 1992, explained how British Police used DNA testing to solve the killings of Dawn Ashworth and Lydia Mann in Leicestershire. The prime suspect in the case had been found to be innocent and Colin Pitchfork had become the first man to be convicted of murder on the basis of DNA fingerprint evidence. It was this book which encouraged Bloodsworth to push for the evidence in his case to be re-examined. After reading "The Blooding", Bloodsworth spoke to his lawyer, Bob Morin, about the semen stain on the victim's underwear. With the support of the Innocence Project (a not-for-profit legal clinic formed to promote the use of DNA analysis to exonerate innocent prisoners) and Centurion Ministries (an investigative agency based in Princeton, New Jersey, which is committed to helping those who have been unjustly convicted), Morin persuaded officials to agree to the testing of biological material preserved from the crime with the then-emerging DNA technology known as PCR (Polymerase chain reaction). The had had in a stain had been tested in the 1980s by the FBI without success and no biological evidence been presented at trial. Bloodsworth and Morin were initially informed that the evidence subsequently been destroyed. However, after persistent enquiries, the evidence turned up paper bag in the judges chambers.

Morin then sent the evidence to Edward T. Blake of Forensic Science Associates ("FSA") in California. This was one of only two private labs in the US who were performing these tests at the time and Blake is now considered the 'father' of forensic DNA testing in the US. Morin paid the $10,000 fee for the analysis out of his own pocket. Tests were carried out on the victim's shorts and underwear, a stick found at the scene and an autopsy slide. The results were compared against the blood standards of the victim and Bloodsworth. A year later, in April 1993, FSA determined that the amount of spermatozoa on the slide was insufficient for testing but tests on the victim's underwear (which contained a semen stain smaller than the size of a dime) excluded Bloodsworth. Replicate testing was then carried out by the FBI in order to confirm the results of the independent FSA testing. The FBI's tests also showed that the DNA was not Bloodsworth's and the state dismissed the charges.

-6-

Exoneration
In June 1993, Kirk Bloodsworth became the first person in the US to be exonerated from death row through post-conviction DNA testing. After the DNA tests confirmed that the semen stain on the victim's underwear could not have come from Bloodsworth, Morin contacted Bloodsworth in to give him the good news "Kirk, you're innocent, you're innocent!"4 Bloodsworth walked out of prison on 28 June 1993. However, some continued to harbour doubts about whether or not Bloodsworth was truly innocent because the real killer had not yet been identified. For the next nine years Bloodsworth pushed for the evidence to be re-examined to attempt to establish who the true killer was. It wasn't until spring 2003 that investigators did eventually order DNA test results to be run through the national database, after a biologist studying evidence from the case found stains on a sheet that had not been analysed. The results of this round of testing turned up Kimberley Shay Ruffner, a convicted rapist who Bloodsworth had known in prison. During the time of Bloodsworths incarceration, Ruffner was convicted of a separate offence and for some time occupied a cell on the floor below Bloodsworth. In the later years of his incarceration Bloodsworth became the prison librarian and was known to have regularly delivered books to Ruffner, who never spoke to him about the crime. Faced with the DNA evidence, Ruffner confessed to killing Dawn Hamilton and was sentenced to life in prison.

Life After Release

After being released from prison, Bloodsworth was offered $300,000 compensation from the state for lost income (based on a rough calculation of what he would have earned during his incarceration - approximately $30,000 a year). His lawyer advised against accepting such a low figure but Bloodsworth, although angry that he was not going to be compensated for emotional distress and suffering, decided to accept the deal. He had been through enough and wanted to renew his life in Cambridge, Maryland. The offer of compensation was conditional upon Bloodsworth's agreement not to sue the state. Bloodsworth had converted to Catholicism from Protestantism whilst in prison. He returned to Cambridge, began dating his current wife Brenda, married her in 1999, bought a modest fishing boat and began living the life he dreamed about in prison. Today, Bloodsworth is Director of Advocacy for Witness to Innocence, an organisation dedicated to empowering exonerated death row survivors to be the most powerful and effective voice in the struggle to end the death penalty in the US. He has also been a strong supporter of the Innocence Protection Act (IPA) since its introduction in February 2000. The IPA established the "Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program", a program that will help provide funding for post-conviction DNA testing. Over 30 state and regional "Innocence" projects are in existence and the funding has so far led to the exoneration by DNA testing of 18 people in the United States. Given his experience, it is amazing that Bloodsworth does not appear to resent the system that incarcerated him all those years ago. In fact, he appears to be driven by his determination to change the system so that other people do not go through the same experience as he did:
4

"BLOODSWORTH: Kirk Bloodsworth tells his story" video documentary by Gregory Bayne (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjAOw-n3CxQ)

-7-

If it could happen to me, it could happen to anybody,5 Bloodsworth is committed to his work against capital punishment and judicial reform, starting out as a volunteer speaker and now as a professional advocate against the death penalty. He has spoken about his story on numerous television shows and been featured in a number of publications and continues to highlight the plight of innocent death row victims. He even published his own book about his experience called Bloodsworth: The True Story of One Man's Triumph over Injustice. His most recent success as the newly appointed Advocacy Director for Witness to Innocence, however, occurred in his very own home town of Maryland, where the General Assembly have at last repealed the death penalty. Bloodsworth has now turned his attention to assisting with the repeal effort in Delaware, where the state's House of Representatives are set to decide whether to abolish the death penalty in the spring.

Sources
M. Bull Kovera, Applying Social Psychology to Law, in R. F. Baumeister and B. J. Bushman, Social Psychology and Human Nature [2009] (extract on Amazon) www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2004_fall/bloodsworth.htm www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/us/exonerated-inmate-seeks-end-to-maryland-deathpenalty.html?_r=0 www.ctpost.com/local/article/Former-death-row-inmate-makes-case-against-699258.php http://truthinjustice.org/nightmare.htm www.exonerate.org/other-local-victories/kirk-bloodsworth/ Bloodsworth v State, 76 Md. App. 23 (1988): http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19889976MdApp23_197.xml&docbase=CSLWAR21986-2006 Bloodsworth v. State, 307 Md. 164 (1986): http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1986471307Md164_1463.xml&docbase=CSLWAR21986-2006 CNN article Kirk Bloodsworth, twice convicted of rape and murder, exonerated by DNA evidence: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/20/bloodsworth.profile/ The Innocence Project - Innocence Blog Exoneree Anniversary: Kirk Bloodsworth: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Exoneree_Anniversary_Kirk_Bloodsworth.php Truthout.org (22 March 2013) On Heels of Successful Death Penalty Repeal in Maryland, Exonerated Death Row Prisoner, Kirk Bloodsworth, Urges Delaware Senate to Follow Suit: http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/15281-on-heels-of-successful-death-penalty-repeal-inmaryland-exonerated-death-row-prisoner-kirk-bloodsworth-urges-delaware-senate-to-follow-suit http://www.law.northwestern.edu/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/mdBloodsworthSummary.html http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Kirk_Bloodsworth.php http://articles.baltimoresun.com/keyword/kirk-bloodsworth

Case Review produced by Pinsent Masons.

http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/15281-on-heels-of-successful-death-penalty-repeal-in-marylandexonerated-death-row-prisoner-kirk-bloodsworth-urges-delaware-senate-to-follow-suit

-8-

Chronology

KIRK NOBLE BLOODSWORTH

25 July 1984 The body of 9-year-old Dawn Venice Hamilton is found in a wooded area near her home. Police arrest and charge Kirk Noble Bloodsworth, a former marine discus champion, with murder, sexual assault and rape. A jury convict Bloodsworth of Dawn Hamilton's murder. Baltimore County Judge J. William Hinkel sentences Bloodsworth to death. Bloodsworth challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict. The Maryland Court of Appeals overturns Bloodsworth's conviction, saying prosecutors illegally withheld evidence about another suspect. The case is returned to the lower courts to be re-tried. A second jury convicts Bloodsworth of murder. He is sentenced to two consecutive life terms. Bloodsworth appeals but his conviction and sentence are affirmed. At the request of Bloodsworth's attorney, Robert Morin (who did not represent him during the initial trials), Baltimore County prosecutors agree to release evidence from Bloodsworth's trial - underwear, a shirt and a stick - for sophisticated DNA testing. A California lab reports that a semen stain on the victim's underwear cannot have come from Bloodsworth. The FBI, after conducting its own test, agrees that the semen found on the underwear could not have come from Bloodsworth. Bloodsworth walks out of prison a free man. Maryland Governor William Donald Schaefer grants Bloodsworth a full pardon based on innocence. DNA evidence proves the identity of the real killer - Kimberley Shay Ruffner.

7 August 1984

8 March 1985

29 July 1986

April 1987

8 July 1988 April 1992

May 1993

25 June 1993

28 June 1993 December 1994

5 September 2003

Chronology produced by Pinsent Masons.

Case Summary

KIRK NOBLE BLOODSWORTH

On 25 July 1984, nine-year-old Dawn Hamilton was found dead. She had been abducted, strangled, sexually molested and beaten to death with a rock in Rosedale, Maryland. Eight months later, the jury convicted Kirk Bloodsworth of first-degree murder and rape of Dawn Hamilton. A Baltimore County Circuit judge sentenced him to death in March 1985. The evidence was based on five eye-witness testimonies. In particular, two young boys had seen Dawn walking with a man immediately before her disappearance. The police published a composite sketch from the description the five boys had given. A few days later an anonymous caller told the police that Bloodsworth had been seen with Dawn that day and a positive identification was made by a witness, confirming that the police sketch resembled a man named Kirk Bloodsworth who worked near the scene of the crime. Bloodsworth's picture was presented to the two boy witnesses as part of a photo parade. One of the boys could not identify the attacker from the photo parade and the other boy identified Bloodsworth as a man that looked like the attacker but specified that the hair colour did not match. The police arrested Bloodsworth based on this information. Following the arrest, an identification 'line up' was organised - one of the witnesses identified a police officer as the attacker (the officer was participating in the line up) and the other witness was unable to identify the attacker from the group. During the first trial, all five eye witnesses testified that they saw Bloodsworth with Dawn Hamilton on the day she was murdered. Moreover, neighbours testified that they had seen Bloodsworth in the area where the crime took place. The police suggested that Bloodsworth had no real alibi and he had confessed to doing something terrible that day which would affect his relationship with his wife. The police also said that Bloodsworth had referred to the bloody rock that was used as the murder weapon information that had not been disclosed to the public. Moreover, the prosecution introduced forensic evidence purporting to link a pair of Bloodsworth's shoes to marks on the victim's body. Baltimore County authorities were sure he was the culprit: he lived and worked near the crime scene, he was seen frequently walking near the woods, he resembled the police sketch of the suspect and he fled the area shortly after the crime. However, Bloodsworth argued that the suspect was described as a thin man, 6 feet 5 inches tall and blond, when he was about 6 feet tall with bright red hair at the time of the incident. After being found guilty of sexual assault, rape and first degree premeditated murder, Bloodsworth was sentenced to death in 1984. Bloodsworth appealed on the basis that he mentioned the bloody rock because the police had one on the table next to him during his interrogation, the terrible thing mentioned to friends was that he failed to buy his wife a taco salad and that the police failed to inform the defence that there may have been another suspect. The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned Bloodsworth's conviction in 1986, finding that the prosecution had illegally withheld potentially exculpatory evidence from the defence. Bloodsworth was re-tried, but was convicted for a second time and sentenced to two consecutive life terms. After an appeal of the second conviction was denied, Bloodsworth's attorney obtained court approval in April 1992 for the DNA testing of biological evidence from the crime scene. No biological evidence had been presented at trial, but both the prosecution and defence attorneys pressed authorities to compare the DNA evidence on the victims shorts and underwear, a stick found at the scene and an autopsy slide against the blood samples of the

victim and Bloodsworth. Both the Forensic Science Associates and the FBI carried out DNA testing on the victim's underwear and eliminated Bloodsworth from any connection to the stain found on the underwear, thereby proving his innocence. In June 1993, Bloodsworth was released from prison after serving almost nine years of the second sentence, including two years on death row. Bloodsworth received a full pardon based on innocence from the governor of Maryland in December 1993 and was given $300,000 in compensation. In 2003, some ten years after Bloodsworth's release from prison, the real killer was identified, following further DNA analysis, as Kimberley Shay Ruffner. After Bloodsworth's conviction was reversed in 1986, he had occupied a cell directly above Ruffner, who was serving a sentence for another rape at the time. Ruffner confessed to the crime and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Case Summary produced by Pinsent Masons.