Forensic Science in Judicial Procedures - Research Paper Example

Bloodsworth v. 76 Md.App.23,543 A.2d 382 Introduction In 1993, Bloodsworth v. case that began in 1985 came to a closure with exoneration of Kirk Bloodsworth. Mr. Bloodsworth, a fisherman in Baltimore, Maryland faced charges of rape, assault and first degree murder after the death of Dawn Hamilton, a nine years old girl in July 1984 in Rosedale. After a number of trials and charges with first degree murder, Kirk Bloodsworth spent 10 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Throughout the time, Kirk had great determination to prove his internal innocence over the crime. Through his lawyer, Bloodsworth searched for evidence everywhere, and struggled with the findings of investigations by Maryland State agencies to demonstrate his innocence. Though Bloodsworth did have an idea of the actual person who committed the crime, he thought about ways to prove his innocence. It was until 1992 that Bloodsworth introduced the idea of DNA testing, which together with lawyer Bob Morin he pushed for consideration as part of the evidence. Findings by Edward Blake of the Forensic Science Associates (FSA) in April of 1993 excluded Bloodsworth. Similar tests conducted by FBI to determine correctness of the tests of FSA showed a mismatch between the DNA in the examined underwear of the victim and that of Bloodsworth (McNamara, 2009). The state then moved quickly to dismiss the charges, and the court approved $300,000 compensation to Bloodsworth for lost earning during the detention. The case is important considering that it was the first to apply DNA test to exonerate a suspect. In this case, the court did great in the admissibility of the forensic science evidence to determine the truth. A Brief Background of the Case Dawn Hamilton, a 9 years old girl visiting her father during summer in 1984 missed when searching for her cousin Lisa near their residence in Rosedale, Maryland. Someone approached Dawn and offered to help in the search into nearby forest wood where the investigators found a mutilated body of Dawn. Two boys who were fishing in a nearby lake saw the man move with Dawn into the wood. After discovery of the body, the two boys assisted the police into recreating a composite of the appearance of the suspect. Upon publication of the composite, someone claimed that image resembled Kirk Bloodsworth. The police move to present the picture of Bloodsworth to the boys for identification. One boy could not link the picture with the suspect they saw. Another claimed that the picture resembled the suspect but there was a problem with the hair. Nonetheless, police obtained arrest warrant and arrested Bloodsworth in August 1984. During the first trial in 1985, the Baltimore County Judge found Kirk guilty rape, first degree murder and assault, and sentenced him to death. The FBI tried to test the underwear found at the scene for clues but could find any biological significance of the results (Bluhm Legal Clinic). Bloodsworth appealed against the ruling, which appellant court reversed and ordered for a retrial. He again appealed against the second trial successfully. The court determined various evidences and tested many suspects but failed to receive anything new, and so continued detaining Bloodsworth. In 1993, tests on the evidence gathered at the crime scene for DNA in the semen did not link to Bloodsworth. Further tests conducted in 2003 for DNA matched on the government database identified the actual prisoner suspect called Kimberly Ruffner, who confessed responsibility over the murder of Dawn Hamilton. Argument for the Admissibility of the Forensic Scientific Evidence The court’s move to grant admissibility of the forensic evidence as pushed for by Bloodsworth and his lawyer Bob Morin was fair and within the principles of justice. The nature of the forensic test evidence requested in the Bloodsworth v. State case passed the Fryer test as was in the Frye v. United States. In the Fryer v. United States, the court determined that a lie detector performed the test. The technique or principle used in presenting the evidence did not meet scientific standards. The Frye test had since been useful in preventing the introduction of unfounded conclusions or principles into evidence. The Frye test views an expert witness as a gun hired for testimonial purposes. In science, DNA test is an acceptable practice to determine correlations of different samples. Scientists in America and elsewhere in the world accept the validity of DNA tests in matching and identify people (Weedn & Hicks, 1998). In that case, the DNA admission of DNA test results by the court in the Bloodsworth v. State case conformed to the part of the principles of the Frye test. The detector Edwin Blake responsible for the initial test is a known practitioner in scientific tests and DNA tests in particular. As at the time, the Forensic Science Associates (FSA) that Blake worked for was one of the two laboratories in USA known to specialize in DNA forensic tests. This statement means that Edwin Blake who performed the test was a high profile scientist whose qualifications surpassed any doubt. Basing on the Rule 702 of the Federal laws that focuses on relevancy and reliability of evidences, the admissibility of the forensic evidence issued by the court in the Bloodsworth v. State was proper. The judges can rely on “gatekeeping” to explain the underlying scientific and technical methods in conducting a test to enable assessment to determine admissibility (Bluhm Legal Clinic). In the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Ninth Circuit‘s Courts of Appeal affirmed the judgment by the District Court that affirmed a motion summary presented by Merrell Dow to prove that Bendectin had no health defects. The court observed that information presented by Merrell Dow was admissible since it enjoyed a unanimous acceptable and approval of the relevant scientific community (Shelton, 2011). The forensic science community treats DNA test with great acceptance as an option for evidence in criminal cases. It is probably for the reason that FBI considered the test in the investigative process during the first trial of Bloodsworth v. State case. The acceptance of the tests and forensic evidence is also likely to be the reason that the same FBI conducted a confirmatory test to determine the validity of the test results by FSA. Arguing from the perspectives of the Daubert’s hearing, the admissibility of the forensic evidence presented in the Bloodsworth v. State, the judge correctly acted within the mandates. From the ruling of the Supreme Court, the Frye standards cannot overturn the Federal Rules on Evidence based on the principle of general acceptability. The Court determined that the judge has the responsibility to measure, test, and determine if the methods used in the analysis adhere to scientific standards (Department of Justice, 2014). The Supreme Court then offered judges with various techniques to try the reliability of the techniques used in the study before granting admissibility. The gate-keeping role assigned to the judges also allowed space for determination of relevance of the evidence to the case and flexibility to make any change. In the Bloodsworth v. State, Bob Morin, Bloodsworth’s lawyer consulted with the court before pushing for the DNA test. This move meant that the judge responsible and the court were aware of the methodologies and the validity of the test before granting authority for performance of such tests. The judge also seemed to have understood and exercised mandate as contained in the Daubert’s standards. Prior to the Bloodsworth v. State case, some courts in the United States had granted admissibility on forensic evidence gather from DNA tests of the accused. In January 1992, the police officers suspected that Jakobetz Randolph was responsible for the murder a Vermont woman. The suspicion led to the search of the trailer driven by Randolph that guided to the discovery of hair that matched those of the victim (United States v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786 [2d Cir. 1992]). The police then sent blood samples of the blood from Randolph and semen found in the victim to FBI in Washington. Later the results confirmed a DNA match between blood and the semen (McNamara, 2009). FBI demonstrated that the chance that the semen samples came from another person was one in 300 million. The court then relied on the forensic evidence to convict Jakobetz to 30 years imprisonment. The Supreme Court also relied on the reliability of the forensic evidence to deny Jakobetz an appeal request. If the trial court and the Supreme Court could both use the forensic evidence to execute justice, it was also fair that the court allowed the use of forensic evidence in the Bloodsworth v. State. The appropriateness of the admissibility of the forensic evidence in the Bloodsworth v. State case also relate to the eventual identification of the actual criminal. The move by the court to accept the DNA forensic evidence paved way for further investigation that eventually led to the arrest of the profound criminal. If the court could have rejected the evidence and continue to detain Kirk Bloodsworth, it would be hard to explore other ways to capture Kimberly Ruffner. Through the efforts by Bloodsworth to find the real criminal behind the murder of Dawn Hamilton it was possible to find unanalyzed stain on a sheet in 2003. As discussed by Smith and Gordon (1997), the test on the sheet and eventual matching of the results with the government database led to the identification of Ruffner. By that time, Kimberly Ruffner was serving a jail term, and agreed to have killed Hamilton when interrogated on the matter. The whole events to the identification of the criminal demonstrate the accuracy and validity of the DNA samples. With such good progress and help of forensic evidence in nabbing the actual suspect, admissibility of the DNA results as evidence was a good step in ensuring fairness and justice. In the case of Bloodsworth v. State, there was no evidence that officials or any person tampered with the DNA samples of evidence gathered from the scene of murder of Dawn Hamilton. For that reason, it was only correct that the court admit the forensic evidence into the determination of the case (Shelton, 2011). Many courts only deny admissibility of forensic evidence in the presence of proof of interference or tampering on such analysis as DNA profiling. Since al the materials containing semen stains remained as originally discovered, the court was fairer in granting admission of the forensic results. Conclusion Forensic science is important in judicial procedures involving first degree criminal offenses in which eye witness and composite reconstruction are insufficient for effective conviction. DNA profiling as used in the Bloodsworth v. State case should also be admissible to guide in effective and judicious convictions. The move by the judge to grant admissibility of the forensic evidence proposed by Bloodsworth was a significant step towards ensuring dispensation of justice. Through acceptance of the evidence, the court exonerated Bloodsworth after imprisonment for 10 years, and later used the same DNA evidence to try the actual criminal behind the murder of Dawn Hamilton. However, courts and judges have to use the existing techniques to try the validity and relevance of test methodologies used to gather forensic evidences. References Bluhm Legal Clinic. Center on Wrongful Convictions: First DNA Death Row Exoneration. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/md/kirk-bloodsworth.html Department of Justice. (2014). Using DNA to Solve Crimes. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from: http://www.justice.gov/ag/advancing-justice-through-dna-technology-using-dna-solve-crimes McNamara, J. (2009). Sketchy Eyewitness-Identification Procedures: A Proposal to Draw Up Legal Guidelines for the Use of Facial Composites in Criminal Investigations. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from: http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/lawreview/issues/2009_3/mcnamara.pdf Shelton, D. E. (2011). Forensic science in court: Challenges in the twenty-first century. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Smith, G. & Gordon, J. (1997). The admission of DNA Evidence in State and Federal Courts. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3374&context=flr Weedn, V. & Hicks, J. (1998). The Unrealized Potential of DNA Testing. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/170596.pdf Read More