WASHINGTON,
Sept. 5 — In his final
years in prison, Kirk
Bloodsworth had a
passing acquaintance
with a fellow inmate,
Kimberly Shay Ruffner.
Mr. Bloodsworth, a
prison librarian,
delivered books to Mr.
Ruffner. Sometimes they
lifted weights together.
But Mr. Bloodsworth said
Mr. Ruffner seemed to
behave "kind of
peculiar" when they
were together.
Mr.
Bloodsworth may now know
the reason why. This
morning, the police in
Baltimore County charged
Mr. Ruffner in the
murder and rape of a
9-year-old in 1984, Dawn
Hamilton, the very crime
that Mr. Bloodsworth was
serving time for when he
met Mr. Ruffner.
"I'm
so happy," said Mr.
Bloodsworth, 43, a
fisherman from
Cambridge, Md.
"This tells the
world that I'm
innocent."
The
charges against Mr.
Ruffner open a new
chapter in a case that
has become a prime
example of the two-edged
nature of DNA testing:
not only as a means of
clearing the wrongly
accused, but also of
identifying new suspects
in cold cases.
In
1993, Mr. Bloodsworth
became the first person
in the nation convicted
in a death penalty case
to be exonerated through
DNA testing, which
eliminated him as a
source of semen stains
on the girl's
underpants. He had
served nine years in
prison, including two on
death row, when he was
released by a judge and
pardoned by the
governor.
Last
spring, a Baltimore
County forensic
biologist who was
studying evidence from
the case found stains on
a sheet that had not
been analyzed, a
spokesman for the Police
Department said.
Investigators conducted
DNA tests on the stains
and ran the results
through a national
database last month. Mr.
Ruffner's name popped
up.
The
police did not have to
go far to charge Mr.
Ruffner. He was still
serving time for
attempted rape and
attempted murder in the
prison in Baltimore
where he had met Mr.
Bloodsworth.
Defense
lawyers say they hope
the dual use of DNA
evidence in the case
will reduce resistance
among prosecutors to
allow prisoners to
challenge convictions
with DNA tests. They say
the case demonstrates
that DNA can not only
prove innocence, but
also pinpoint culprits.
"Maryland,
and the nation, would be
remiss if we did not
learn from today's
news," said Peter
Loge, director of the
Criminal Justice Reform
Education Fund, which
has championed Mr.
Bloodsworth's case.
The
new charges were filed
at a crucial time in a
debate in Florida over a
law from 2001 that will
soon bar prisoners from
seeking DNA testing for
old cases. The law set
Oct. 1 as the deadline
for such requests. It
also allows the
destruction of DNA
evidence, except in
death penalty cases.
Defense
lawyers contend that the
Hamilton case clearly
shows how DNA can be
used to reopen cold
cases. If a law like
Florida's had been in
effect in Maryland 12
years ago, they say, Mr.
Bloodsworth would still
be behind bars.
"This
should be a cautionary
tale to those in Florida
who are insisting on
this deadline for
destroying biological
evidence," said
Barry Scheck,
co-director of the
Innocence Project at the
Benjamin L. Cardozo Law
School in Manhattan.
"It's a law
enforcement
calamity."
Many
prosecutors contend that
DNA testing, though
reliable, is not a
sure-fire way to prove
innocence where there is
other evidence of guilt.
DNA testing, they say,
should be seen as only
one piece of a bigger
evidentiary puzzle.
"I
don't know of many
people in my business
who don't see the
accuracy of DNA
testing," George W.
Clarke, deputy district
attorney for San Diego
County, said. "It's
more the significance of
those results. Those
questions aren't about
to go away."
For
Mr. Bloodsworth, today's
developments had a far
more personal
significance. Though he
was pardoned a decade
ago, he said some people
had continued to view
him as a child murderer.
Worse, he feared that
prosecutors remained
convinced of his guilt
and might try to bring
new charges against him.
So
after the assistant
state's attorney who had
prosecuted him, Ann
Brobst, called him on
Thursday night to ask
for a meeting, Mr.
Bloodsworth and his wife
could not sleep.
"We
were prepared for
anything," Mr.
Bloodsworth's lawyer,
Deborah Crandall, said.
Instead,
in a meeting this
morning at a Burger
King, Ms. Brobst told
Mr. Bloodsworth of the
DNA evidence against Mr.
Ruffner and apologized
for wrongly prosecuting
him. Mr. Bloodsworth,
who has become an
outspoken advocate for
reforming federal death
penalty laws, said he
cried and then hugged
Ms. Brobst.
In an
interview, the state's
attorney for Baltimore
County, Sandra A.
O'Connor, said that the
police and prosecutors
had acted responsibly in
the case, but that DNA
technology did not exist
at the time of Mr.
Bloodsworth's trial.
What did exist were the
statements of five
witnesses who said they
saw him with the girl on
the day she was killed.
"Obviously,"
Ms. O'connor said,
"the system failed
in the case of Mr.
Bloodsworth."