Forensic Analysis of Bloodsworth v. State Paper Example

Introduction

According to Saint Leo, students are nurtured to be ethical problem solvers. Saint Leo provides grounds for the institution to offer students a chance to learn the ethical values which guarantee an individual of becoming a future moral leader. Also, the core values are to enable the Campus to be a nurturing place to grow and learn to be right problem-solving individuals. As part of the course requirements, Saint Leo students are required to be conversant with Saint Leo principles which revolve around excellence. Students are trimmed to develop good character, learn and assimilate skills and knowledge for becoming morally responsible leaders and ethical practitioners in legal matters. Hospitable Christian leaders are made at Saint Leo since the facility focuses on the unity, spirit of belonging, and interdependence.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Forensic Analysis of Bloodsworth v. State

As a principle stipulated by Saint Leo institution, I chose Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 for my analysis since it has a sound analytical basis for the shortcomings of the jury, investigation department and the incompatibility of forensic evidence concerning Bloodsworth v. State (Bruer, Price & Dahl, 2017). In this study of a forensic evidence case, Saint Leo core values will be incorporated to come up with cogent arguments that sets my position paper on the fact that the required ethical values and principles as stipulated by Saint Leo were not considered in Bloodsworth v. State case thus leading to a wrongful conviction of death sentence for Bloodsworth (Bruer et al., 2017). According to Bruer et al. (2017), "many wrongful conviction and exonerees were brought to the table due to undervaluing the testimonies with honest grounds." Kirk Noble Bloodsworth is an appellant and a defendant for first-degree rape and multiple counts of sexual versus State who represented the death of a 9-year-old girl.

Dawn was found in Baltimore county lying dead portraying that she had been pinched with an eight-inch stick in her vagina and with several abrasions. The in-court identification of Bloodsworth by Christine, an eyewitness, was not accompanied by any forensic evidence (Bruer et al., 2017). Even though Christine identified Bloodsworth both in the court and in a photographic appearance, no sufficient evidence could prove that he was the man behind the gruesome rape and murder of Dawn (Bruer et al., 2017). It was evident that Jackie identified the Wordsworth, but he was a wrong man in the line-up on August 13, 1984. Thus the outcome led to a wrongful verdict against Bloodsworth on the rape and murder of Dawn.

Concerning the research was done by Bruer et al. (2017), "an investigator who is undertaking a case that presents an alibi witness should evaluate the credibility" of the alibi witness to come to a suitable and ethical conclusion. Therefore, it is ethical to outline that sufficient evidence of rape must be accompanied by enough forensic evidence in the form of biometric identification and DNA test that could provide any evidence of or against Bloodsworth and the rape tangle. Photo identification by Jackie proved that she had doubts of the right person she saw at the scene thus the act was a guarantee to make the court of Trial to seek further forensic evidence that could tie or untie Bloodsworth from the gruesome rape and murder of Dawn (Bruer et al., 2017).

According to the story of the occurrence of rape against Dawn, the girl approached two boys who were in a company of an adult male who was fishing around Golden Ring Mall in Baltimore Maryland. After asking for a favor to help her (Dawn) to find her cousin, the young boys refused to let the adult male take charge of maintaining Dawn in finding her cousin. However, all went wrong when Dawn was found dead with evidence that she was raped (Bealefeld III, 2012). Bloodsworth was brought before the jury in the circuit court of Baltimore County. In the process, Bloodsworth was convicted to have been guilty of first-degree murder, a 1st-degree felony offense, and felony murder after five witnesses presented their evidence in court. Smith J convicted Bloodsworth with the three counts leading to consecutive life terms even without analyzing the efficacy of the evidence put against him.

Lack of the principle of excellence as stipulated by Saint Leo made the jury to convict Bloodsworth, and the defendant is guilty of wrongful allegations of crime against Dawn. The fact that Dr. Ostrom revealed that he had received an unscheduled visit by a patient who was under psychological problem at a concurrent time that crime had happened proved that the person in charge of receiving the information was not ethical in burying the news from reaching the jury at the time of trial (Pendergrass, 2013). It is evident that the process lacked the fundamental ethical considerations that could enable the ruling to be connected to the right person (Pendergrass, 2013). There was not enough evidence to convict Bloodsworth with multiple counts of first-degree murder, sexual offense and felony murder without sufficient forensic evidence that could be used to pin him down.

Lack of ethical incorporation in the analysis of the evidence and forensic pieces of evidence provided was evident throughout the process of investigation and verdict of the death sentence against Bloodsworth. At first, the court might have made an error in admitting rebuttal evidence on Bloodsworth's testimony during the first trial. Additionally, the court had not gathered sufficient evidence since the claims were supposed to be accompanied with forensic evidence concerning DNA tests as additional evidence that could guarantee the worth subjecting Bloodsworth to multiple counts of felony and first-degree murder and rape (Bruer et al., 2017). It is evident that the trial court abused its mandate to carry out relevant and ethical discretion in denying the Bloodsworth as the appellant a chance for a new trial to decide the worth of his case and verdict upon him (Pendergrass, 2013). Also, it is evident that the trial court portrayed to have an error in admitting other crimes as evidence against Bloodsworth.

On the other hand, the court of the trial did wrong to call the witnesses as the main court's witness against Bloodsworth. Bloodsworth outlined the fact that the court erred in excluding specific evidence which could offer a chance for composite stretch concerning the case (Pendergrass, 2013). Even though the appellant confirmed that he was acting to a call for a favor, the court of appeal failed to consider him in his argument and twisted the case making the appellant a suspect as a result of a tip. Therefore, it was evident that the court made an improper judgment thus leading to several counts of first-degree murder, sexual offense, and first-degree felony murder.

Lack or ethics as stipulated by Saint Leo made the investigators to have a predetermined prime suspect, Bloodsworth in their investigation. According to Pendergrass (2013), all the subsequent studies focused on pinning down Bloodsworth on the death of Dawn. Additionally, it is evident that the investigators targeted Bloodworth as the only suspect that could be pinned to the case. The reason is that no other suspect was investigated concerning the crime and neither did they consult any other leads to the offense (Pendergrass, 2013). Even after evidence portrayed that Bloodsworth did not resemble any of the descriptions that were given to the police at first, the second sketch of a crime scene resembled a tangle that involved Bloodsworth as the main suspect for the crime. Since two of the witnesses did not pick put Bloodsworth at first, it was evident that Bloodsworth legitimacy for a case was to be investigated. The demographical features of the prime suspect were found not to be fitting the description of Bloodsworth as the prime suspect for the case.

Bealefeld III (2013) asserts that the analysis of DNA test that was done five years later proved that Bloodsworth was innocent and had been convicted with several counts of crime that was not ethically justified and determined by the court of trial. It was clear that the appellant was only charged with the murder and rape of Dawn since he was identified to be the person who was seen four hours earlier with Dawn before her gruesome death (Bealefeld III, 2013). The conviction of Bloodsworth was due to lack of taking neutral grounds during the analysis of the evidence produced concerning the cause of Dawn's death.

According to the admissibility of evidence in a court, the matter of questioning the voluntary and involuntary use of recent evidence was not justified this the verdict made upon the evidence was contrary to the presumed proof (White, 2011). According to Bloodsworth's actions that were outlined by his defense lawyer Douglas Orr, it was a terrible decision for Bloodsworth to quit his job and leave his wife at the time of need to help him curb depression. The fact that there was no rebuttal evidence, it was clear that the court of the trial was incompetent in coming to a viable conclusion about the case of Bloodsworth (Bealefeld III, 2013). Also, there was no sound discretion from the trial court after failed attempts at identifying Bloodsworth in the photo images and mismatch of identification at the courtroom.

After lack of excellence in carrying out forensic evidence concerning the case and connection of Bloodsworth in the death and rape of dawn, it was evident that the process lacked the relevant ethical principles that should be applied to make a moral conclusion. Additionally, the officer who delayed the justice upon Bloodsworth by hiding the prime suspect on the death of Dawn is the one who failed to provide the evidence presented by Dr. Ostrom (White, 2011). Two years after sentencing Bloodsworth to death, Dr. Ostrom's testimony concerning the possibility of David Rehill who had utterly said that he had done a terrible thing made Bloodsworth have a glaze on his vindication. According to Dr. Ostrom, Rehill came without following an official schedule to the health center. The date of the visit was July 25, 1984, at noon (White, 2011). The details portrayed that Rehill outlined that he had come to describe his relationship with a little girl. A secretary by the name Beverly Raymond explained that he saw fresh scratches on his right face and that on the day of the murder, Rehill appeared calm and quiet.

Concerning Saint Leo Core Values, the court failed to submit evidence concerning Rehill in due time thus leading to the unfair and improper sentencing of Bloodsworth in the controversial death of Dawn. According to Bloodsworth, the court of trial and appeal failed to uphold Rule 4- 263(e) and was unable to disclose the relevant information for timely releasing the evidence of Rehill's unscheduled visit at the hospital that was only minutes from the area of the bloody death of Dawn.

The forensic evidence of shoeprint did not exempt Bloodsworth from the case as he claimed that the shoe was Gray's. The photographic evidence presented regarding the shoe of Gary did not fit the pattern that the jury had concerning the shoe that was at the scene during the death row. The shoe sole was compared with the "running type of shoes" and the combination of the sole steps on car mats (Phillips, 2011). The evidence was sufficient to refute the claims that Bloodsworth outlined that Gray was the killer.

Pendergrass (2013, p.112) outlines that "after eight years of imprisonment, Bloodsworth was released in 1993 after DNA testing that provided grounds for his exoneration." As a first inmate to prove his innocence upon DNA evidence, Bloodsworth was able to be released with a forensic DNA test that is now used in ev...