Bloodsworth

Bloodsworth: The True Story of the First Death Row Inmate Exonerated by DNA is a true crime book by Tim Junkin. First published in 2004, this work of nonfiction tells the story of the first man who survived death row because DNA proved his innocence. The man is now a spokesman against capital punishment, and he supports this book. Junkin is a novelist and educator. He worked as an attorney for a Washington-based law firm before turning to public defender work. He now writes full-time, and his novels often include legal issues and lawyer characters. Bloodsworth is his first nonfiction title.

Bloodsworth explores what happened to a man called Kirk Bloodsworth. He begins by describing the background to the case. In 1984, Maryland charged Kirk with the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl. The crime and the charges shocked the small community. During his trial, Kirk always pled not guilty, but the jury found him guilty. The judge sentenced him to death.

Kirk secured a retrial when the prosecution admitted to improperly withholding evidence. However, the judge once again sentenced Kirk to death. Kirk spent many years on death row looking for ways to prove his innocence until, one day, he found his answer—DNA testing, a ground-breaking, new medical science.



Although this is Kirk’s story, Junkin also discusses the lawyer who helped Kirk win his case. The lawyer is Bob Morin. Bob spent years trying to help people get off death row. He hates the thought of an innocent man dying for someone else’s crime. However, when Kirk waited on death row, Bob had so many other cases to deal with that he quickly forgot about Kirk.

One day, Bob meets with Kirk. Kirk surprises Bob in every possible way. He doesn’t just want to prove his own innocence, but he wants to find the real killer before they murder any more children. He writes to politicians, attorneys, and everyone else who will listen. For five years, seven days a week, he pleads his own case. Bob’s never met a guilty inmate with such perseverance, and he knows beyond reasonable doubt that Kirk’s innocent.

Bob knows it’s a long shot, but he decides to take on Kirk’s case. He realizes that he didn’t become a lawyer to defend “easy” cases. He wants to uphold justice. He can’t, in all conscience, watch Kirk die without trying to defend him. Junkin highlights that Bob’s as important to this story as Kirk himself.



What’s so special about Kirk’s case, Junkin explains, is how it coincides with DNA testing breakthroughs. Junkin notes that DNA evidence is very new and it’s expensive to obtain. DNA testing isn’t applied to every crime scene yet. Kirk, however, is convinced that DNA testing will exonerate him. Bob’s inclined to believe him.

Junkin notes that, from a legal perspective, bringing Kirk’s case back to trial is complex. He’s already exhausted his appeal rights because he successfully secured a retrial. A second retrial is a constitutional “first” in America. On the other hand, cases like Kirk’s can shape the law and set future precedents. Whether Kirk succeeds or fails, his case is significant.

Bob, more than anyone, understands how important Kirk’s case is to legal precedents. If Kirk’s exonerated, then there’s compelling evidence to support using DNA testing at all crime scenes. Other prisoners may be released. New convictions might be secured. The constitutional implications for being innocent until proven guilty are also significant.



Junkin describes the battle faced by Kirk and Bob. Bob must first consider the evidence obtained at the scene, because some small DNA samples were collected. The FBI took cheek and vaginal swabs, but they couldn’t make sense of the findings. The collection methods were imperfect, and scientists risked accidentally destroying evidence. Bob must revisit this old evidence and look for gaps. He must then assess what new technology exists to disprove the old findings. More importantly, he must present new evidence. Given that there’s no crime scene left, and given that the victim died many years ago, presenting new DNA evidence seems impossible. However, Bob must try.

Helpfully, the American press aren’t convinced by Kirk’s sentencing. Junkin notes that, occasionally, journalists wrote articles questioning the murder. Most of the evidence against Kirk was circumstantial, and it arguably didn’t prove Kirk’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Bob plans to capitalize on public sympathy to support a retrial. Junkin shows that, while the press can hinder justice, they can serve it, too.

Junkin considers the role of DNA testing in finally proving Kirk’s innocence. The verdict makes it much harder for juries and judges to convict people without compelling evidence. Circumstantial evidence should never be enough for capital punishment. Kirk’s verdict helps political groups, families, charities, and inmates. The verdict is so significant that it secures trials for 16 former death row prisoners, who are all exonerated after DNA testing. Kirk’s case is arguably one of the most important criminal law cases in US history.