The Court Case Of Kirk Noble Bloodsworth

In the state of Maryland on July 29th, 1986 Kirk Noble Bloodsworth was brought to trial. The crimes that were said to be committed were; first degree murder, first degree rape, and first degree sexual offense. The defendants in the case were the following; Julia Doyle Bernhardt and George E. Burns, Jr., Asst. Public Defenders (Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, on brief), Baltimore, for appellant. Valerie V. Cloutier, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., on brief), Baltimore, for appellee. According to the documents of his life not much occurred before the alleged murder, that would raise any questions. Kirk was a marine who had been honorably discharged, at the time, leading a quiet life as a fisherman at twenty three years old.

The witnesses all placed him with the victim or near the scene of the crime about the time the crime was thought to have happened. Five witnesses identified Bloodsworth as the last person seen with Dawn Hamilton, the victim. However, there was no evidence, physical or otherwise to prove he was the killer. Two juries, two different prosecutors, two judges, and the police force of Baltimore County did not dig deeper into the case for more substantial evidence. They just chose to believe the eyewitness identification, although flawed. Poor legal defense and careless work by detectives and prosecutors added to Bloodsworth’s false conviction. Kirk states, "they were all dead wrong." (https://www.witnesstoinnocence.org) The trial judge determined that he should be sentenced to death. Even though he was convicted in 1985 and sentenced to death, much of the evidence against Bloodsworth was tainted and flawed. One piece of evidence was a witness, Tina Christopher, who could not remember exactly a conversation she had with Bloodsworth about another man (who supposedly committed the crime) and a bloody rock. This was still introduced as evidence. The prosecution

State, 220 Md. 193, 198, 151 A.2d 743, 746 (1959), "that is not a fatal objection." ” Bloodsworth v. State, 307 Md. 164, 171 (Md. 1986) On the basis of Brady, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215(1963), Bloodsworth takes issue with the State's failure to provide the defense with a copy of a confidential report by Detective Mark Bacon. This report concluded with Bacon's "opinion that Mr. Bloodsworth introduced evidence from an expert to the effect that the seized shoes in question were five half sizes too small for