In 1984, Kirk Bloodsworth was arrested for raping and killing Dawn Hamilton, a nine-year-old who was found in a wooded area near her home in Rosedale, Maryland (Evans 63). Despite alibi witnesses placing him at home and other various places throughout the same day, he was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to death at his first trial in 1985. A year later, the Maryland Court of Appeals overturned the sentence and ordered a new trial because police had another suspect in the case and failed to inform Bloodsworth's attorney. The new suspect, a newspaper deliveryman, was seen in the woods just before Dawn's body was discovered. Also, this man's shirt was stained with a spot that seemed like blood (Evans 63). This breakthrough did not help Bloodsworth at all. In the second trial, Bloodsworth was convicted on the same charges, and sentenced to three terms of life imprisonment (Evans 64). During reexaminations of the physical evidence, "a spot of semen, less than one-sixteenth of an inch wide was found on the victim's panties" (Evans 64). Then, "the prosecution signed a letter saying they would agree to Bloodsworth's release if a laboratory ever determines with scientific certainty that any sperm found did not belong to Bloodsworth and that the prosecution confirmed the results independently" (Evans 64). A California lab determined that the DNA of the semen did not match a sample of blood provided by Bloodsworth. He was then released on June 28, 1993 and officially pardoned on December 22, 1993 (Evans 64). If it were not for Alec Jeffreys's discovery, Kirk Bloodsworth would probably have had to spend the rest of his life in prison for a crime he did not commit (Lane 45). DNA fingerprinting has many advantages and disadvantages. The many homicide cases prove DNA fingerprinting is the best way to catch criminals, but the main controversy is whether or not the legal system will allow this evidence to be used in a court of law.
