PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I adopt the words of the formidable Ohio criminal defence lawyer/blogger Jeff Gamso..."JUST TEST THE FUCKING DNA.
http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/2018/05/what-is-truth-said-jesting-pilate.html
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
-----------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY:"While his case is nuanced and devastating on numerous levels, two facts in particular deserve further scrutiny: the quality of his defense and the means of the prosecution. Bloodsworth began his trial after just three meetings with his defense counsel. He was convicted based on the testimony of five purported eyewitnesses, three of whom could not identify him in a line-up, but saw him on TV after the crime was committed. After initially refusing, the prosecution finally agreed to DNA testing in Bloodsworth’s case. For all those years, the real murderer and rapist was free. Sixth Amendment Guarantee: The Sixth Amendment guarantees all people accused of crimes the right to a speedy public trial, an impartial jury, evidence against them, and counsel. Given these constitutional guarantees, how, then, could Bloodworth’s case proceed as it did? How could he have met with his public defender a mere three times when his life and liberty were on the line? How was he sentenced to state-sanctioned death based on faulty eyewitness testimony? Why did the prosecution initially resist testing DNA evidence?"
----------------------------------------------------------
POST: "Can Prosecutors and Public Defenders Team Up to Produce Fairer Justice?," by reporters Roy. L. Austin Jr. and Carlos J. Martinez, published by The Crime Report on March 27, 2019. "Roy L. Austin, Jr., former Deputy Assistant to President Obama for Urban Affairs, Justice and Opportunity, and a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division. Carlos J. Martinez is the elected Public Defender for Miami-Dade County, Florida. They are the co-authors, with Allison Goldberg of the Institute for Innovations in Prosecution (IIP), and Kirk Bloodsworth of the IIP report, “Prosecution and Public Defense: The Prosecutor’s Role in Securing a Meaningful Right to an Attorney.”
SUB-HEADING: "As prosecutors aim to prove their commitment to a more equitable and
effective justice system, they should be prepared to answer: How are you
going to ensure a robust defense for all?"
GIST: "Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted and sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit.
Charged with sexually assaulting and brutally killing a nine-year old
girl, the former U.S. Marine spent nine years in prison, including two
on death row, before being exonerated in 1993, as a result of DNA
testing. He was the first person to be sentenced to death and then subsequently exonerated. His case led to the Innocence Protection Act of 2004, which in turn established the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program and has helped free hundreds of other wrongfully convicted Americans.While his case is nuanced and devastating on numerous levels, two
facts in particular deserve further scrutiny: the quality of his defense
and the means of the prosecution. Bloodsworth began his trial after just three meetings with his
defense counsel. He was convicted based on the testimony of five
purported eyewitnesses, three of whom could not identify him in a
line-up, but saw him on TV after the crime was committed. After initially refusing, the prosecution finally agreed to DNA testing in Bloodsworth’s case. For all those years, the real murderer and rapist was free. Sixth Amendment Guarantee: The Sixth Amendment guarantees all people accused of crimes the right
to a speedy public trial, an impartial jury, evidence against them, and
counsel. Given these constitutional guarantees, how, then, could Bloodworth’s case proceed as it did? How could he have met with his public defender a mere three times
when his life and liberty were on the line? How was he sentenced to
state-sanctioned death based on faulty eyewitness testimony? Why did the
prosecution initially resist testing DNA evidence? We probe these questions in a paper
we authored with Bloodsworth that the Institute for Innovation in
Prosecution (IIP) at John Jay College released this week. While these
questions are specific to the Bloodsworth case, they also speak to the
state of public defense, prosecution and, more broadly, our adversarial
system. From 2008 to 2012, state government indigent defense expenditures had an average annual decrease of 0.2 percent. Nearly three-quarters of county-based public defender offices exceeded the maximum recommended limit of cases received per attorney in 2007. Research has revealed
inconsistent and less favorable outcomes, including in sentence
lengths, for those with non-public defender court-appointed counsel.
Recent reporting shows that this problem is not going away. These realities exacerbate systemic inequities, as low-income
individuals and people of color are disproportionately penalized at every stage of the criminal justice process, and are more likely to have counsel funded by the government. Across the courtroom – or, in more than 90 percent of cases disposed,
the plea process – defense counsel represent their clients and
challenge prosecutorial overreach. With discretion to charge, recommend
bail, and condition pleas, prosecutors are amongst the most powerful
stakeholders in the criminal justice system. As this power comes under unprecedented scrutiny, many candidates
running for District Attorney are touting their commitment to justice
and reform over conviction rates and sentencing lengths. One way they can make our system fairer is by taking immediate steps to strengthen indigent defense:
- Support funding for public defense. As chief local law enforcement officials, prosecutors have a strong voice in policy debates and legislative matters, and an important public platform to support adequate funding for indigent defense.
- Minimize the criminal justice footprint. Prosecutors hold significant discretion over who enters the criminal justice system. By scrutinizing arrests during case intake, declining to prosecute certain low-level offenses, and advocating for alternatives to cash bail and incarceration, prosecutors can minimize the extensive reach of the justice system and save money, while also reducing the heavy workloads of public defenders.
- Promote and implement standards of transparency. In many jurisdictions, prosecutors are not mandated to show evidence against the accused until right before trial. This means that in the vast majority of cases that result in a plea deal, defendants may never see evidence against them. By instituting open discovery and complementary practices – such as adversarial testing of evidence, conviction review units, and data transparency – prosecutors can help strengthen the legitimacy of the system."
The entire post can be read at:
https://thecrimereport.org/2019/03/27/can-prosecutors-and-public-defenders-team-up-to-produce-fairer-justice/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the National Registry of Exonerations entry, by Rob Warden, at the link below:
After Bloodsworth’s conviction was reversed in 1986, he occupied a cell directly above that occupied by Kimberly Shay Ruffner, who was serving a sentence for another rape and who—a decade after Bloodsworth’s exoneration—would be linked by DNA to the rape and murder of the Hamilton child.
The principal evidence purporting to link Bloodsworth to the 1984 crime was the testimony of five witnesses who placed him either with the victim or near the scene of the crime at the time it was believed to have occurred. In addition, the prosecution introduced forensic evidence purporting to link a pair of his shoes to marks on the victim's body.
The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned Bloodsworth’s conviction in 1986 after finding that the prosecution had illegally withheld potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense, Bloodsworth v. State, 307 Md. 164 (1986). However, Bloodsworth was retried, again convicted, and sentenced to two life terms. That conviction and sentence was affirmed on appeal, Bloodsworth v. State, 76 Md. App. 23 (1988).
In 1992, however, the prosecution agreed to testing of biological material preserved from the crime with a then-emerging DNA technology known as PCR (polymerase chain reaction). The tests, performed by Edward T. Blake, of Forensic Science Associates, in Richmond, California, incontrovertibly established Bloodsworth’s innocence. After the FBI confirmed the results, Bloodsworth was released June 28, 1993. He was the first U.S. death row prisoner to be cleared by DNA. In December 1994, Maryland Governor William Donald Schaefer granted Bloodsworth a full pardon based on innocence.
Nine years later, in the spring of 2003, a Baltimore County forensic biologist who was studying evidence from the case found stains on a sheet that had not been analyzed. Investigators ordered DNA testing and ran the results through the FBI’s national DNA database (CODIS), which linked Ruffner to the crime. Bloodsworth, who had been the prison librarian in his later years of incarceration, had regularly delivered books to Ruffner and the two had lifted weights together.
Ruffner arrived in prison just a month after Bloodsworth and knew about Bloodsworth’s case, his attempts to win a new trial, and his claim of actual innocence. However, Ruffner said nothing to lead Bloodsworth to suspect that Ruffner had killed Dawn Hamilton. Bloodsworth learned the news from prosecutors shortly before Ruffner was formally charged with the crime on September 5, 2003.
The State of Maryland paid Bloodsworth $300,000 for lost income, based on the rough calculation that he would have earned some $30,000 a year for the years from his arrest to his release.
In 2004, the Justice for All Act authorized the establishment of the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, a grant program that provides funding to states to help defray the costs associated with post-conviction DNA testing.
https://thecrimereport.org/2019/03/27/can-prosecutors-and-public-defenders-team-up-to-produce-fairer-justice/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the National Registry of Exonerations entry, by Rob Warden, at the link below:
"Kirk Noble
Bloodsworth, a former Marine discus champion, was proven innocent by DNA
in 1993 of the rape and murder of nine-year-old Dawn Hamilton—a crime
for which he was sentenced to death in Baltimore County, Maryland, in
1985.
After Bloodsworth’s conviction was reversed in 1986, he occupied a cell directly above that occupied by Kimberly Shay Ruffner, who was serving a sentence for another rape and who—a decade after Bloodsworth’s exoneration—would be linked by DNA to the rape and murder of the Hamilton child.
The principal evidence purporting to link Bloodsworth to the 1984 crime was the testimony of five witnesses who placed him either with the victim or near the scene of the crime at the time it was believed to have occurred. In addition, the prosecution introduced forensic evidence purporting to link a pair of his shoes to marks on the victim's body.
The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned Bloodsworth’s conviction in 1986 after finding that the prosecution had illegally withheld potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense, Bloodsworth v. State, 307 Md. 164 (1986). However, Bloodsworth was retried, again convicted, and sentenced to two life terms. That conviction and sentence was affirmed on appeal, Bloodsworth v. State, 76 Md. App. 23 (1988).
In 1992, however, the prosecution agreed to testing of biological material preserved from the crime with a then-emerging DNA technology known as PCR (polymerase chain reaction). The tests, performed by Edward T. Blake, of Forensic Science Associates, in Richmond, California, incontrovertibly established Bloodsworth’s innocence. After the FBI confirmed the results, Bloodsworth was released June 28, 1993. He was the first U.S. death row prisoner to be cleared by DNA. In December 1994, Maryland Governor William Donald Schaefer granted Bloodsworth a full pardon based on innocence.
Nine years later, in the spring of 2003, a Baltimore County forensic biologist who was studying evidence from the case found stains on a sheet that had not been analyzed. Investigators ordered DNA testing and ran the results through the FBI’s national DNA database (CODIS), which linked Ruffner to the crime. Bloodsworth, who had been the prison librarian in his later years of incarceration, had regularly delivered books to Ruffner and the two had lifted weights together.
Ruffner arrived in prison just a month after Bloodsworth and knew about Bloodsworth’s case, his attempts to win a new trial, and his claim of actual innocence. However, Ruffner said nothing to lead Bloodsworth to suspect that Ruffner had killed Dawn Hamilton. Bloodsworth learned the news from prosecutors shortly before Ruffner was formally charged with the crime on September 5, 2003.
The State of Maryland paid Bloodsworth $300,000 for lost income, based on the rough calculation that he would have earned some $30,000 a year for the years from his arrest to his release.
In 2004, the Justice for All Act authorized the establishment of the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, a grant program that provides funding to states to help defray the costs associated with post-conviction DNA testing.
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3032
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
