The Shooting of Mr. Kirkland's Mother

​

On April 23, 2011, the eve of Mr. Kirkland's mother's birthday, Kirkland called home to wish her a Happy Birthday, only to find out she was in the hospital suffering from gunshot wounds.  A female friend took Mr. Kirkland's mother out for her birthday.  As they pulled back into his mother's driveway, the women were ambushed by someone firing multiple shots into the vehicle.  Both women were shot multiple times.

 

Upon receiving this information, Mr. Kirkland was heartbroken and psychologically traumatized, which led to his emotional decision to walk away from a minimum-security correctional facility and return to Springfield, Massachusetts, to find out what happened to his mother.

 

Tamik Kirkland was completing a two-and-a-half to four years prison term for firearm charges. At this point, he had completed correctional programs within the institution, was enrolled in and completing a college course, and otherwise had spent much time educating and preparing himself for his release, which was just months away.  His entire family was thrilled with his progress, and his young daughter was happy that her “Daddy” was coming home soon.

 

Mr. Kirkland already had employment on the outside and serious plans of turning his life around.  But this tragedy struck, turning his entire world upside down.

 

In Massachusetts, because this was a minimum security facility with no walls or fences, his actions usually would've been deemed a “walk-away,” not necessarily an “escape.”  But for political purposes, the media and the courts put a spin on Mr. Kirkland's actions and characterized them as an “escape.”  This was the beginning of the harmful and prejudicial perception of Kirkland's campaign for the public's eye.

​

PART I: FLAWED IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES; PREVENTED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE; FALSE TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS, AND SEVERAL OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

​

The Shooting/Murder Incident That Mr. Kirkland has been Wrongfully Convicted of

​

On April 30, 2011, seven days after Mr. Kirkland's mother's incident, and while Kirkland was still out, there was a fatal shooting in a barbershop in his neighborhood after his walk away from the facility.  Mr. Kirkland was immediately blamed for that shooting (and every other shooting that happened in Springfield during that week he was at large).  This was based on the false assumption that this shooting was in retaliation for what happened to his mother.  But the truth is, Mr. Kirkland did not know either of the victims of the shooting, there's no evidence connecting either to Mr. Kirkland's mother's shooting, and he never had any interactions with any of them before or after his mother's incident. However, Mr. Kirkland was tried and convicted of the murder of a customer and the attempted murder of a barber.  SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS; NO CONNECTION 

​

 

Flawed Identification Procedures for the Sole Eyewitness to the Murderer's Identity

 

According to the Supreme Judicial Court Study Group on Eyewitness Evidence and several decisions from the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), misidentification is the ‘‘greatest source’’ of wrongful convictions.  Due to misidentifications leading to so many wrongful convictions, the Study Group put “best practices” safeguards in place for the police to follow to reduce the chances of misidentifications.

 

Dr. Deah S. Quinlivan, an eyewitness identifications expert whose expert testimony, scholarly articles, or treatises regarding the results of the research on eyewitness identifications has been generally accepted by the scientific community, testified at an evidentiary hearing for Mr. Kirkland's motion for a new trial.  At the hearing, Dr. Quinlivan explained the safeguards, their purposes, and the fact that many were ignored in Mr. Kirkland's case leading to the accuracy of King's identification of Mr. Kirkland being under 29%. 

SEE TRANSCRIPTS OF DR. QUINLIVAN'S TESTIMONY.

 

Safeguard #1)  Make Sure ALL People in the Photo Array (lineup) match the Suspect's description.  The Suspect in a Photo Array Should NOT, Based on a Characteristic, Stand Out from the Other People.  If the Suspect's Photo Stands Out, the Identification Procedure is “Suggestive”:

 

Darryl King, who has been a barber for over twenty years, was the only witness to the shooter's identity and told the police that the shooter was a Black male with cornrows in his hair.  The police then showed Mr. King a photo array of eight Black males for him to pick out the alleged shooter.  Of those eight Black males, Mr. Kirkland was the only one wearing cornrows in his hair.  During his testimony, Mr. King admitted that when he was shown the photos, he noticed Mr. Kirkland was the only person wearing cornrows in his hair.

 

The police have thousands of photos of Black males with braids.  They were supposed to put a few more Black males with braids in the photo array by law.  The “unnecessarily suggestive” photo array was presented with the intent to indirectly direct Mr. King to identify Mr. Kirkland as the assailant, which King still had difficulties doing.  SEE THE PHOTO ARRAYS.

 

Research has shown that where a person's photo (in an array) stands out, especially because the exact trait that the witness attributed to the suspect is ONLY in his photo, the witness's confidence may be inflated because the selection process seemed so easy to the witness.  In Kirkland's case, it was the braids.

 

The purpose of this safeguard is to prevent law enforcement from using “unnecessarily suggestive” photo arrays, which decreases the reliability of identifications and increases the chances of misidentifications.  The law enforcement officers totally disregarded Safeguard #1.

 

Safeguard #2)  Law Enforcement Should Present Photos to the Witness Sequentially (one photo at a time), Instead of Presenting the Photos Simultaneously (multiple photos at the same time).  If the Witness Requests to See any Photos Again, He Should Be Shown the Entire Array, Sequentially.  If He's Not Able to Identify Anyone the Second Time, the Identification Process is to End:

 

Research has shown that when witnesses are presented with a simultaneous lineup, witnesses tend to compare faces, ruling out people (using the process of elimination) until they come up with the “best match” rather than an “absolute match” (a positive identification).

 

The “process of elimination” is the process people use when they're not sure of the answer to a multiple-choice question.  Naturally, witnesses believe the suspect's photo is in the array that the police are showing them, and they want to help the officer.  So, when the actual culprit's photo isn't in the array, the witness will resort to using the process of elimination to make sure they pick out someone's photo to help the officer.  That's one of the reasons innocent people get misidentified as culprits.  Research has also shown that sequential lineups decrease false identifications and lead to fewer misidentifications of innocent people.  That's the purpose of this safeguard.

 

The officers in Mr. Kirkland's case initially gave King the eight photos, one at a time (sequentially).  The problem came when they let King hold and compare all eight photos, which turned this into a “simultaneous” presentation.

 

To make matters worse, when Mr. King couldn't select a photo, the officers let him keep four of the eight photos (numbers 2, 4, 6, and 7) to look at again.  After he failed to identify anyone the second time, they allowed him to put two of the four photos aside, stating, “It was between photographs 6 and 7”.  During his third view, while comparing photographs 6 and 7, Mr. King, in an actual process of elimination form, settled on the only photo of the person wearing “cornrows in his hair.”  He stated, “Mainly look like #7”.  Even though this photo stood out, King still struggled with this identification.  SEE MR. KING'S IDENTIFICATION PROTOCOL.  Obviously, that's the photo of Tamik Kirkland.  That improper identification was the only identification of the alleged assailant in this case.  The officers clearly disregarded Safeguard #2 as well.

 

Safeguard #3)  Use Double-Blind Administration When Securing an Identification from a Witness, and Video Record the Procedure:

​

When police present photos to a witness, officers who know the alleged suspect and where his photo is placed in the array should NOT be in the room during the identification procedure.  This is called the “double-blind administration.”

 

The purpose of recording the procedure is to preserve evidence of the reliability or unreliability of the identification. Research has shown that when officers know who the suspect is and where his photo is in the array, officers often subconsciously give signals to the identifying witness.  So the purpose of this safeguard is to prevent law enforcement officers from consciously or subconsciously giving signs to the witness as to whom the police believe the suspect is.

 

During the “supposed” double-blind administration identification procedure with Mr. King, there were three Massachusetts State Police officers in the room.  Two of these officers testified that;

 

1) when the procedure took place, both of them believed Mr. Kirkland was the suspect;

 

2) they knew where his photo was in the array;

 

3) that they failed to leave the room while the third officer presented Mr. King with the photos; and

 

4) the officers also failed to record the procedure.

 

Who knows what happened in that room, especially when Mr. King struggled to identify Mr. Kirkland as the shooter???  Massachusetts State Police were hellbent on identifying Kirkland by any means.  They completely ignored and disregarded Safeguard #3.

 

Because the police failed to record this procedure, no one knows what went on in that room, especially when Mr. King was struggling to identify Kirkland as the shooter. Massachusetts state police were hellbent on identifying Kirkland by any means; therefore, they ignored and disregarded safeguard number three. 

 

These safeguard protections being ignored by law enforcement is the recipe for misidentifications, which is why this is the leading cause of wrongful convictions of innocent people.

 

Media Manipulation

 

The media, whose responsibility is to report information to the public, is really in bed with the government, and they only tell the public what the government wants the public to know.

 

For example, Prior to trial, Mr. Kirkland filed a motion to suppress the identification in his case.  At the hearing, all of the identification issues mentioned above were brought to the Court's attention and were the purpose of the hearing.  Buffy Spencer, a reporter for The Republican newspaper, was in attendance.  The next day she published her report on Masslive.com.  The heading of her story read, “Tamik Kirkland of Springfield definitely the man who shot him 11 times, Darryl King tells court”.  She said Mr. King “repeatedly asserted” Mr. Kirkland shot him, continuously bringing up Kirkland's mother's shooting.  She said nothing about King being shown an “unnecessarily suggestive” photo array, how the State Trooper testified that King used the process of elimination to identify Mr. Kirkland as the shooter, and other errors with the identification.  SEE THE NEWS ARTICLE ABOUT THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS

​

The “Cornrows” Issues; [False Testimony of the Commonwealth Witnesses, and Violations of Several Sixth Amendment Rights]: 

 

The subject of “cornrows” was the central issue in this case. Darryl King identified Mr. Kirkland from an old photo from when Kirkland had braids.  Mr. Kirkland had a low haircut at the time of the shooting, and it was impossible to have had cornrows in his hair.  But to make Kirkland match the description of the shooter, the Commonwealth put people on the stand to lie and say Mr. Kirkland had cornrows in his hair that day. Proving that Mr. Kirkland did not and could not have cornrowed hair at the time of the shooting was essential to his defense.  His defense attorneys even promised to present such evidence in his opening statement to the jury. 

SEE THE STATEMENT FROM DEFENSE'S OPENING.

​

False Testimony of Three of the Commonwealth's Witnesses:

 

Carolyn Wright, a civilian witness in this case, who admitted to lying several times throughout this ordeal, testified that Mr. Kirkland had cornrows in his hair on the day of the barbershop shooting.  SEE MS. WRIGHT'S STATEMENT.   SEE THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF MS. WRIGHT'S TESTIMONY.

 

Stephen Gregorczyk, Massachusetts State Police officer, testified that when he arrested Mr. Kirkland, Kirkland had cornrows in his hair.  SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF TROOPER GREGORCZYK'S TESTIMONY.

 

Springfield Police Officer, Erica Capoza, was one of the Commonwealth's rebuttal witnesses.  The sole purpose of her testimony was to corroborate Ms. Wright's and Trooper Gregorczyk's testimony that Mr. Kirkland had cornrows in his hair the day of the shooting.

 

Officer Capoza testified that she rode with Mr. Kirkland on the ambulance to the hospital; he was in her vision for 20-25 minutes, he was shot up and bleeding badly, and she clearly remembered him having cornrows in his hair during that ride. Her testimony about his condition was known to all and is vital to remember when the prosecutor later accuses him of cutting his hair in the hospital. 

SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF OFFICER CAPOZA'S TESTIMONY.

 

Mr. Kirkland's attorneys presented a video and a still shot of Mr. Kirkland in the hospital bed with tubes down his throat the day after the shooting and Mr. Kirkland's booking photos (mugshots) taken by Detective Juan Estrada six days after the shooting.  Mr. Kirkland's hair was low in all images.  SEE HOSPITAL VIDEO, MAY 1ST.  SEE BOOKING PHOTOS, MAY 6TH.

 

Det. Estrada reported that when he went to Mr. Kirkland's hospital room, a police officer and several correctional officers were watching over Kirkland.  Det. Estrada described Mr. Kirkland as a “right-handed” individual with “a cast on his right hand which covered his wrist and fingers completely.”  Keep that in mind as well when the prosecutor is implying that Kirkland took out his alleged cornrows and cut his hair in the hospital without any of the officers seeing Kirkland do it.  SEE DET. ESTRADA'S REPORT.  

 

Mr. Kirkland was Prevented From Presenting Exculpatory Evidence

 

Because those images were taken in the hospital AFTER the braided assailant committed the shooting, Mr. Kirkland tried to show the jury photos of himself with a low haircut that were taken days BEFORE the shooting to fulfill his attorney's promise by proving to the jury that it was impossible for him to have had cornrows in his hair on the day of the incident.  That would've also shown the jury that the Commonwealth put witnesses on the stand to lie, to make Kirkland match the description of the shooter.  But Mr. Kirkland's attorneys fought against him (in court) and denied him his constitutional right to present favorable evidence to the jury (the compulsory process).  SEE APRIL 10TH PHOTOS.  SEE APRIL 22ND PHOTOS.

 

Mr. Kirkland was Denied His Rights to a Public Trial, Denied His Right to be Present, and Denied His Right Conflict-Free Counsel

 

When Mr. Kirkland's attorneys told the judge they were ready to “rest” his case without presenting those photos to the jury, Mr. Kirkland, on the record, told his attorneys, “No, not resting,” and attempted to address the Court.  His attorneys then told him that he could not handle the Court, and then his attorneys conducted a “sidebar” conference with the judge, even though the jury wasn't in the courtroom.

 

The purpose of sidebar conferences is to prevent the jury from hearing things they aren't supposed to consider when deliberating. Because the jury wasn't in the courtroom, there was no reason for a sidebar conference. The purpose of this sidebar was to silence Kirkland from exposing his own violations and keep them out of the public's eye. This partially closed the Court, violating Mr. Kirkland's constitutional right to a public trial.

 

At the sidebar, the attorneys secretly addressed the issue with the judge without Mr. Kirkland explaining his position, violating Mr. Kirkland's constitutional right to be present at all “critical stages” of the proceedings.  This entire situation was also an apparent conflict of interest issue, violating Mr. Kirkland's constitutional right to conflict-free counsel.

 

During this sidebar conference, the attorneys took advantage of Mr. Kirkland's absence and misrepresented the issue to the judge to protect themselves from ineffective assistance of counsel claims.  An attorney is constitutionally obligated to do an independent and thorough investigation and to help prepare all potential defenses.  By failing to speak with the women in those April photos, as Mr. Kirkland directed them, Mr. Kirkland's attorneys failed to do their duty  (transcripts of Attorney Andreopoulos's admission of this failure are coming up).  After the sidebar conference, his attorneys rested his case without showing the jury any photos.  SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS; KIRKLAND SPOKE UP.

 

When Capoza finished her rebuttal, the judge called for a recess.  After recess, in protest of his lawyers “selling him out,” Mr. Kirkland refused to reenter the courtroom.  The judge sent the court officers to get Kirkland from the bullpen and emptied the courtroom, except for Kirkland, the court officers, his lawyers, and his mother, so she could convince him to finish the trial.  SEE THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF MR. KIRKLAND'S PROTEST.

 

During that [off the record] conference Kirkland explained to his mother and lawyers that the photos of him AFTER the shooting don't prove anything.  He specifically told them that the prosecutor would just argue that he must've got his hair cut in the hospital.  Mr. Kirkland explained that the jury needed to see how short his hair was days BEFORE the shooting to prove he couldn't have had cornrows on the day of the shooting and that two officers had committed perjury.  He continued to argue with his lawyers about them violating his Sixth Amendment right to present exculpatory evidence to the jury.  His attorneys said they weren't going to present the photos.  At this point, Kirkland told his mother that he knew he was being railroaded but would come out to finish the trial, and he did.

 

Once Mr. Kirkland spoke up, protested, and argued his position, his attorneys knew that Mr. Kirkland would not be quiet about his rights being violated.  But it was too late.  They'd already rested the defense.  So in a further attempt to hide their failures, the attorneys showed the prosecutor the photos and tried to get him to agree to show the evidence to the jury. That did not work out.  SEE THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE ATTORNEY/PROSECUTOR DISCUSSION. SEE DA STIPULATION LETTER,

 

The next day Mr. Kirkland addressed the Court by making his attorney read his letter.  The letter explained that there was evidence and a witness that he had been requesting his attorneys to prepare and bring forward  “several months” before the trial. His own attorneys denied him the constitutional right to compulsory process (to present witnesses favorable to his defense).  He described why the evidence was essential to his case and that it would have helped prove that he was not the Black male with braids that shot those men.  SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF THE ATTORNEY READING THE LETTER.

 

After reading that letter, the judge asked his lawyers if they had tried to locate that woman from the photos, and they cleverly sidestepped the question.  His attorneys never attempted to contact the witness (FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND PREPARE).  They then explained that they were trying to negotiate with the prosecutor to let them show the photos to the jury.  The negotiations failed as the prosecutor would only agree to show the pictures if he could tell the jury that Mr. Kirkland's hair could've grown long enough to get cornrowed in the eight days since the photos were taken.  That was absurd, scientifically impossible, and defeated the purpose of Mr. Kirkland showing the images to the jury. The judge later made that same ridiculous offer to Kirkland's counsel, which they declined.  So the trial ended without the jury ever seeing the photos proving Mr. Kirkland could not have had cornrows in his hair on the day in question.

 

To deny Mr. Kirkland's appeal on this issue, the SJC ruled that it's up to the lawyers as to which witnesses to call and what evidence to present, NOT Mr. Kirkland.  They say if a defendant chooses to be represented by an attorney, he has to give all of his power to his attorney.  If he wants to have a say in which evidence to present, he has to represent himself (pro se).  This is a clear violation of Mr. Kirkland's, and of all, the defendant's, Sixth Amendment rights, where “the accused” is guaranteed the right “to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor AND to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”  The Constitution does not say the accused gets one or the other.  SEE FARETTA V. CALIFORNIA, 422 U.S. 806, 818-820 (1975), CITING THE 6TH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

 

The courts are, unconstitutionally, taking the compulsory rights that are guaranteed to the accused away from the accused and giving them to the lawyers.  The process of creating a defense is in two parts. They are strategic (the plan before trial, for trial) and tactical (the adjustments during practice).  Tactical decisions are left to counsel.  That reason is to protect the trial process from delays from having to stop and get a client's approval regarding random things that come up during the trial.  The violation in Kirkland's case is due to the courts giving counsel powers to override Kirkland's decision on his defense during the pretrial investigative stages, when there were no trial delays to be concerned with.  That is inconsistent with the fundamental reason for giving a defendant's “assistant” powers to decide for his ”boss.”  This misinterpretation and misapplication of case law and the Constitution affects and can affect every citizen in the United States during criminal litigation.  This puts all of our personal liberties at stake.

 

Courts have been making these unconstitutional rulings for far too long.  When a defendant isn't knowledgeable enough to participate in his defense, the lawyer's job is to educate, advise, and help the client decide.  When the defendant decides how his defense will be conducted, the lawyer should NOT be allowed to override the defendant's decisions and wishes.  After all, the defendant, NOT the lawyer, must carry out the sentence if the defense fails.  Giving lawyers the right to override the defendant is one of the reasons too many are railroaded into the system.  For this violation alone, Mr. Kirkland's conviction should be overturned.  SEE KIRKLAND'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

 

The prosecutor gave unsworn testimony, amounting to improper closing argument, and boosted the credibility of his witnesses when his argument relied on the false testimony of Carolyn Wright, Trooper Gregorczyk, and Officer Capoza, who claimed to have seen Kirkland with cornrows on the day of the shooting. Even though the prosecutor saw all of the photos and knew Mr. Kirkland did not have cornrows at the time of the incident, during his closing argument, he did exactly what Mr. Kirkland prophesied.  Instead of correcting the false testimony, which the prosecutor was legally obligated to do, he implied that Kirkland must've cut his hair in the hospital. He argued that Kirkland's video and still shot in the hospital shows “the outline of where the hair goes and it's just ‘pulled back very tight’ as he lay in the hospital bed.”  He told the jury, “The photograph is of horrible quality.  You can't see much.”  Then the prosecutor argued about the booking photos (which showed Kirkland with a low haircut) taken by Officer Estrada six days after the shooting, saying, “Officer Estrada doesn't know what happened during those six days... You can change your hair...  Your hair can be cut...  So hairstyles change and can change.”  That could've been true if Kirkland had longer hair, to begin with.  But the prosecutor knew Kirkland had a low haircut days before the shooting.  He knew his witnesses lied, and he did nothing to correct it.  SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF D.A.'S CLOSING ARGUMENT.

 

Had Mr. Kirkland's attorneys presented the photos that clearly would've shown his hair was too low to have grown long enough to have been cornrowed eight days later, the prosecutor would've never attempted to make that argument.  In fact, he would've had to explain to the jury why three of his witnesses lied to them when they testified that Mr. Kirkland had cornrows in his hair when he couldn't have.

 

Things didn't go that way, though.  Obviously, the jury believed the prosecution's theory and found Mr. Kirkland guilty of a crime he didn't NOT commit.  After conviction, Kirkland filed a motion for a new trial, mainly regarding the abovementioned issues. At an evidentiary hearing, three witnesses testified on his behalf. One of his trial attorneys, Nikolas Andreopoulos, testified against him.

 

Post-Conviction Evidence

 

Tiara Galbreath, the female in the April 10th photos, testified that she used to visit Mr. Kirkland “every other weekend because it was her weekend off [from work].”  She authenticated those photos of herself and Mr. Kirkland, taken in the facility's visiting room twenty days before the barbershop shooting.  She stated that the photos clearly and accurately reflect her recollection of Mr. Kirkland's haircut at the time.  She described it as a “low haircut... close to the head” and stated, “He was trying to grow waves.”  She testified that she gave the photos to Attorney Andreopoulos in May or June 2011.  SEE THE EVIDENTIARY TRANSCRIPTS OF MS. GALBREATH'S TESTIMONY.

 

Joy Talbot, co-chairman of the Board of Registration of Cosmetology and Barbering of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is a position in which a person has to be nominated by the Governor.  The Board “oversees all of the laws and regulations, as well as write the laws and regulations for cosmetology and barbering,” and sets the requirements for by which people become licensed in the Commonwealth.  Mrs. Talbot testified as an expert witness at this hearing.  She testified that the longest a person's hair could grow in one month is “a half an inch,” When you use a Number 1 attachment on clippers, it would probably cut hair to “a sixteenth of an inch.”  In her expert opinion, if a person's hair were cut with a Number 1 attachment, it would take “maybe three months at the very shortest amount of time” for his hair to grow long enough to be cornrowed.

 

Mrs. Talbot was shown the April 10th photos and asked her opinion about whether Mr. Kirkland's hair was long enough to be cornrowed.  She testified, “By just look at them, ‘No.’ ”  Then she was shown the April 22nd photos and was asked the same question.  Mrs. Talbot said, “It looks like [Mr. Kirkland's hair] might be slightly shorter than in the first pictures...  It might be more difficult, even.”  She was then shown Mr. Kirkland's booking photos and said, “This is even easier to tell; it's a little closer.  As you can see on the sides of the head, you can see the scalp so that I would say, ‘No.’ ”

 

Far-reaching and a new theory, the prosecutor asked Mrs. Talbot about whether Mr. Kirkland could've attached extensions to his hair and whether the booking photos show or suggest any indication that they have been recently removed.  She said, “It's hard to say.”  She said the hair “seems a little short to try extensions.  You want to have enough hair to grab a hold...  It looks a little short, but not totally impossible.”  She said, “In order to take [extensions] out, you would have to probably cut them out, and take a clipper and cut them out.... would be left with a pile of extensions in their hand or a waste product of a number of extensions.”  Finally, she was asked if extensions were inserted in his head would those leave any tell-tale marks on the lead in the booking photo.  Mrs. Talbot testified, “... you would have to cut it out, and the hair wouldn't be as even.  It would be a lot more uneven.  Because the hair is so short... it would be a lot of patches.”  SEE THE EVIDENTIARY TRANSCRIPTS OF MRS. TALBOT'S TESTIMONY.

 

Fred Smith, a licensed barber since 1992, also testified as an expert witness at this hearing.  Mr. Smith is actually the barber who cut Kirkland's hair in the April 10th and 22nd photos for his visits.  Mr. Smith stated he used to cut Mr. Kirkland's hair “every other week... using a number 1 [attachment], with the grain,” which cut Kirkland's hair to “a sixteenth of an inch.”  In his expert opinion, it would take Kirkland at least six months for his hair to grow long enough to be cornrowed after being cut to a sixteenth of an inch.  Mr. Smith testified that the length of Kirkland's hair in the April 10th and 22nd photos is consistent with the haircuts he had been giving Mr. Kirkland.  SEE THE EVIDENTIARY TRANSCRIPTS OF MR. SMITH'S TESTIMONY.

​

Those three witnesses' testimony and all of those photos prove Mr. Kirkland did not and could not have had cornrows in his hair on the day of the shooting.  The motion judge and the SJC refused to address the impossibility of Kirkland having cornrows on the day in question because they would've also had to address the fact that two police officers committed perjury when they testified that Kirkland wore cornrows that day.  Members of the prosecution team testified falsely, and the prosecutor did nothing to correct it, clearly violating constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial. For this violation alone, Kirkland's tainted conviction should be overturned.  But the SJC ignored this issue, hoping to sweep it under the rug.  We cannot let them get away with that.

​

 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Nikolas Andreopoulos, one of Mr. Kirkland's trial attorneys, testified that he remembers Mr. King was adamant that the barbershop shooter wore braids on the day of the shooting. Officer Capoza testified that Mr. Kirkland wore braids in his hair on the way to the hospital that day.  Andreopoulos said the question of whether or not Kirkland wore braids that day was relevant to the defense.  So he showed the jury a video of Mr. Kirkland in the hospital without braids the day after the shooting, and Mr. Kirkland's booking photos, which were taken six days after the shooting.

 

Andreopoulos testified that at trial, Kirkland wanted to show the jury photos of himself with a friend that showed him without braids days before leaving the institution. Still, Andreopoulos didn't want to show the pictures because he was trying to keep evidence of Mr. Kirkland's escape out of the case, along with “how many days [Mr. Kirkland] had been out on the street, and what could have happened in that [eight days] time-period, regarding the braids...”  Andreopoulos also said he was worried about what the women in the photos had to say about Mr. Kirkland if they testified.  SEE EVIDENTIARY TRANSCRIPTS OF ATTORNEY ANDREOPOULOS'S TESTIMONY.  The excuses Andreopoulos made in an attempt to justify denying Mr. Kirkland's right to present those photos are totally unreasonable.

 

First, Mr. Kirkland's “escape” was already before the jury and was a part if his defense.  During the defense's opening statement to the jury, while explaining that Kirkland wasn't in the trunk of the car because of the barbershop shooting, Attorney Andreopoulos stated, “[Mr. Kirkland] was laying low from the police...  He was on the low from the law.”  Even during the defense's closing argument to the jury, the defense counsel argued, “Well, we heard Mr. Kirkland escaped prison.  He was lying low...  Don't forget; he's an escapee; he's on the run, is on the low.”  SEE DEFENSE'S OPENING STATEMENT.  SEE THE DEFENSE'S CLOSING ARGUMENT.  So this keeping “escape out” excuse makes no sense.

 

Secondly, Andreopoulos admitted that he never considered looking into any hair expert that “could've given an opinion as to whether the hair shown in any of the photos was susceptible to braiding or cornrowing.” However, doing so “couldn't have hurt.”  Had he done his due diligence, he would've known that nothing could've happened with Mr. Kirkland's hair.  It couldn't grow long enough to be cornrowed in that eight-day time period that the prosecutor threatened him with and tried to get him to agree to.  Mrs. Talbot and Mr. Smith explained that above.  So this excuse for denying Kirkland's right to present those photos still doesn't make sense.

 

Lastly, Andreopoulos remembered meeting with Ms. Galbreath several times but needs to remember her giving him the April 10th photos.  Andreopoulos was asked if he attempted to reach the woman from the April 22nd photo, and he stated, “I don't remember that, no.  [Andrew Klyman and I] pretty much made a decision that we weren't going to do that.”

 

Despite Mr. Kirkland's requests to investigate and contact the women in the photos that prove he could not have had cornrows on the day in question, his attorneys refused.  Then they used not knowing what the women would've said as an excuse to deny Mr. Kirkland of his right to call them as witnesses.  This excuse makes no sense, either.

 

As you can see, this is CLEAR EVIDENCE that Mr. Kirkland's attorneys completely sold him out.  All of those violations pertain to the identification of the perpetrator and Mr. Kirkland's lawyers, the Commonwealth, and the courts preventing him from presenting evidence to help prove that he was not the perpetrator.  The courts define third-party culprit evidence as anything that implicates anyone other than the defendant.

 

The public should be concerned about what this government and its agents (all attorneys are OFFICERS OF THE COURT!) do to its citizens (especially Black and Brown) when they believe a defendant doesn't have a bunch of support or that no one's paying attention. This could happen to anyone. We as a people have to take a stand against injustices like this.