Part ll 

​

​By law, and if the evidence exists, a defendant may present evidence that the crime could have been committed by someone other than the defendant (Third Party Culprit Defense).  That's one of the basic ways to create reasonable doubt about a defendant's guilt.  To deny a defendant the right to present such evidence is to deny him the right to defend himself in court, which violates his rights under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 

In Kirkland's case, the Commonwealth had evidence in their possession, from their own investigation, that another person may have committed the crime Mr. Kirkland had been accused of.  Mr. Kirkland was denied his right to present that evidence to the jury FULLY.  The presentation of this evidence was extremely important to Mr. Kirkland's case.  Not only would it have raised serious doubt as to Kirkland's guilt, but it could have also been necessary to impeach and discredit the statements of Mr. Kirkland's codefendant, Trevin Smith (The third-party culprit), who became a Commonwealth witness in this case, and several other witnesses.  (SEE TREVIN'S STATEMENT.)​

​

Physical Description of the April 30th [Barbershop] Shooter, Mr. Kirkland, and the Third Party Culprit

​

According to the evidence, witnesses said the shooter was a “medium” brown-skinned male, wearing a black hoodie and cornrows in his hair.  He went into the barbershop and fired two guns, striking the barber and killing the customer.  After the shooting, he ran down Montrose Street towards Cambridge and Burr Streets, bringing several items of paraphernalia to the house (duplex) on the corner of Cambridge and Burr Streets.

 

As you've learned in Part 1, this case started with the misidentification of Mr. Kirkland due to a flawed photo array. In the array, Kirkland was the only person wearing cornrows in his hair, the exact trait that the sole witness attributed to the barbershop shooter. You've also learned that Mr. Kirkland could not have been wearing cornrows at the time of the shooting.

 

Aside from the “cornrowed” description of the shooter, a few witnesses, while unable to identify the shooter, also described the shooter's complexion as “medium” brown. (SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF WITNESS'S DESCRIPTION—“MEDIUM BROWN.") 

(SEE STATEMENT OF ANOTHER WITNESS'S DESCRIPTION - “MEDIUM COLORED”.)

​​

You've seen photos of Kirkland, who was even described at trial as a “dark-skinned” individual.  Not one person said the shooter had dark skin.  But during the prosecutor's closing, he improperly argued to the jury that witnesses told them “again and again” about the shooter's “darkness of skin”.  (SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF D.A.'S CLOSING ARGUMENT - COMPLEXION.)

 

During closing arguments, the prosecutor relied on false testimony for Mr. Kirkland to fit the braided description of the shooter (cornrows), and then misstated other testimony to make the shooter's skin complexion fit Mr. Kirkland's.  Obviously, those are two descriptions of the assailant that Mr. Kirkland couldn't fit.  But when the third party culprit, who was once a prospective witness for the prosecutor, turned himself in in New York City (four days after the shooting), their arrest report described his hairstyle as “BRAIDS” and his skin tone as “MEDIUM”.  (SEE ARREST REPORT.)

 

In his statement against Kirkland, Trevin admitted that he fled Springfield to NYC immediately after the shooting and surrendered four days later.  But Kirkland was not allowed to present that EXCULPATORY evidence to the jury at trial. Witnesses said the shooter wore a black hooded sweatshirt.  Karen Fuller, Trevin's girlfriend and the mother of two children testified that Trevin wore a black hoodie “all the time.” He wore one when she saw him in the neighborhood on the afternoon of the shooting (however, when he turned himself in in New York City, he was wearing a snorkel jacket - according to the “Arrest Report” cited above. This is another piece of EXCULPATORY evidence that Kirkland wasn't allowed to present at trial).

 

Witnesses said the shooter fired two firearms inside the barbershop.  Right after the shooting, Fuller reported to Springfield Police Officer J.B. Stern that Trevin was “armed with more than one firearm” and told other officers about Trevin telling her about “shootings,” him being involved with “a war going on,” and him having “a lot of guns”.  (SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF OFFICER STERN'S TESTIMONY.)  (SEE TRANSCRIPTS OF MS. FULLER'S INTERVIEW BY POLICE - SHOOTOUTS/GUNS.) 

 

Witnesses outside the barbershop say that after the shooting, the assailant left the scene on foot, running towards Burr and Cambridge Streets.  Massachusetts State Police officer, Brendan O'Toole, testified that he interviewed Ms. Fuller. She also told him that during the afternoon of April 30th, 2011, immediately after the shooting, when Trevin sent her over to the house on the corner of Cambridge and Burr Streets, Trevin “looked hot and sweaty,” as one would be after running from a shooting. (SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF TROOPER O'TOOLE.) During Trooper O'Toole's first interview with Ms. Fuller, she told him that Trevin always hangs out at the house on the corner of Cambridge and Burr Streets; she often picks him up from over there, delivers him food, etc.  (SEE TRANSCRIPTS OF MS. FULLER'S INTERVIEW BY POLICE - CAROL'S HOUSE.)

 

Evidence of Three of the House's Witnesses Covering Up for Trevin and Lying on Kirkland

 

On the day of the shooting, three witnesses from the house, Linka Baulkman, Carolyn Wright, and Lakeanna Carter, all gave statements to the police, saying Kirkland entered the house, put guns to their heads, and threatened them.  At trial, they admitted that that was false. Because Kirkland had a warrant out for his arrest (for leaving the facility), they didn't tell the truth about Kirkland already being at the house while the barbershop shooting was occurring.  It is clear, as common knowledge, that these witnesses, whose children were present at that location, didn't want to risk having their children taken away, in addition to them possibly being charged with harboring a fugitive.  Thus, they wanted to please the officers, whose focus was Kirkland.  In their statements, they also lied by saying Trevin, whom they had a better relationship with, wasn't at the house that day. It's obvious they were using Kirkland as a scapegoat to protect Trevin.

 

As you see on the first page of Trevin's statement, he leaves out that he was at “Carol Baulkman's house” (the house on the corner of Cambridge and Burr Streets) on the day in question.  On the last page, he says he “won't even be there, [he] just go there and zip out,” contrary to Ms. Fuller's observations and beliefs (see Fuller's link above). In her statement, Linka Baulkman (Carol's daughter) stated she recognized Trevin in a photo array.  She said she always saw him in the neighborhood, that she didn't get along with him too well, he didn't go to her mother's house on the day in question, and the last time she saw him was at the beginning of that week (at the store by her mother's house).  (SEE MS. BAULKMAN'S STATEMENT TO THE POLICE.)

 

Then, several weeks later, Ms. Baulkman testified before the grand jury.  There, she admitted to lying about her relationship with Trevin, how often he's at that house, and that he was, IN FACT, at the house ten minutes before Kirkland allegedly came in the back door, which was consistent with the timeline of the barbershop crimes.  Mr. Kirkland was not able to present this EXCULPATORY evidence at trial.

 

In Ms. Wright's statement, the same Ms. Wright that lied about Kirkland wearing cornrows, she states that other people were at the house, that she didn't know who they were, and that they had left five or ten minutes later.  Then, about twenty minutes later, Mr. Kirkland came into the house, threatening them with a gun.... (SEE MS. WRIGHT'S STATEMENT).  Before the trial, the defense private investigator contacted Ms. Wrigh. She gave an affidavit stating that she lied in her statement when she said Kirkland came into the house threatening them with a gun. Once the prosecutor received Ms. Wright's affidavit, Wright was exposed to obstruction and/or perjury charges. The prosecutor went to see her with state troopers, and she suddenly remembered Kirkland asking for a change of clothes. Why do you think she came up with new incriminating information then?

 

At the trial, Wright testified that Kirkland asked for a shirt.  When she was asked whether there were any men in the house, she said, “A man came to pick up some children... ”  So, til this day, she still sticks to the story that Trevin wasn't at the house that day. But confessed that Kirkland never put a gun to their heads.  (SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF MS. WRIGHT'S TESTIMONY - CLOTHING/OMITTED THIRD PARTY PRESENCE.)

In Ms. Carter's statement, she recognized Trevin and said he wasn't at that house on the day of the shooting as well.  (SEE MS. CARTER'S STATEMENT.) 

 

Because of Baulkman's grand jury testimony, confessing that Trevin was at the house, the prosecutor knew Carter lied about Trevin's presence, too.  Like Ms. Wright remembering Kirkland allegedly asking for a change of clothes when the prosecutor and state troopers met with Carter, she also “suddenly remembers” Kirkland asking for a change of clothes and that Ms. Baulkman gave them to him.  She also “suddenly remembers” Kirkland having two guns (not just one, as her statement said) and putting one gun in the recliner chair in the living room.  Why do you think she came up with new incriminating information at that particular time??

 

It's obvious that the prosecutor and/or state police officers told Carter and Wright to alter their testimonies to strengthen their case against Kirkland.  After the prosecutor made a deal not to prosecute her for lying about Trevin not being at the house on that day, Carter testified that Trevin was there earlier in the day. However, without Ms. Carter's truthful cooperation, Kirkland was not able to present the fact that Trevin had actually been at that house ten minutes before the shooting and right after.  (SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF IMMUNITY.)  (SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF MS. CARTER'S TESTIMONY.)

 

Notice how all three women lied in their original statements and had Fifth Amendment - right against self-incrimination - claims, but the Commonwealth only promised two of them (Wright and Carter) not to prosecute them if they testified.  Mr. Kirkland attempted to call Baulkman to set the record straight, but the prosecutor didn't make the same promise to her.  He was basically telling Baulkman that if you testify for Kirkland, I'm arresting you for lying in your prior statement and the grand jury.  So Ms. Baulkman, understandably, exercised her Fifth Amendment right.

​

Ballistics, GSR, and DNA

​The barbershop shooter allegedly ran from the barbershop and discarded paraphernalia (including firearms) at Carol's house. Things were getting too hot at that house.  The police were everywhere, and everyone knew they were coming.  Without any knowledge of what took place at the barbershop and being in a rush to leave that house, Mr. Kirkland left with one of the guns that were brought there.  That gun is alleged to have been one of the guns used in the barbershop shooting. Consistent with a Commonwealth expert's testimony, it is common for individuals to share firearms; thus, it's no surprise that Kirkland had one of them. That does not mean that he is the barbershop shooter.  He was already evading the police because of the warrant for his escape.  Time was so crucial that he tried to evade them by jumping into the trunk of a car, which is where he got caught with the gun.

 

Inside the house, the police found two unrelated guns in the basement. They also found the other gun allegedly used in the barbershop shooting, a black hoodie and gloves, in and/or by a recliner chair in the living room. Another black hoodie was found inside an upstairs bedroom. The gloves and hoodie found in the living room tested positive for gunshot residue (GSR), and a DNA MIXTURE OF AT LEAST FOUR INDIVIDUALS, including Mr. Kirkland, matching the major profile, was found on the items.  No DNA was found on the firearms.  (SEE DNA CONCLUSIONS.)

 

At trial, DNA expert Elisse Coronda testified that it could've even been five other people's DNA in those items.  She said she didn't know how long the DNA had been on those items or if Mr. Kirkland was even the last person to wear those items.  She testified that it's possible that one of the other individuals whose DNA was found in the clothing could've been the last person to wear it.  (SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF DNA EXPERT.) The authorities never compared the third-party culprit's DNA as a possible match for any of the other profiles.

 

The authorities never tested the hoodie from the bedroom.  Nearly nine years after the incident, Kirkland got Forensic Scientists (GSR) Tarah Helsel, Allison Laneve, and DNA Analyst Lyndsey Sanney to analyze the item. The results of the GSR test on the second hoodie state that no three-component particles were found, but one two-component particle was found on the right sleeve. This means there could be GSR on the hoodie.  However, because the third component particle wasn't found, it could only be considered “potential” GSR.  Remember, this was nearly nine years later.  (SEE GSR RESULTS - JANUARY 2020.)

​

Sanney found a DNA mixture of at least three individuals.  She compared the detected DNA on that hoodie with Mr. Kirkland's, and Kirkland was excluded as a possible contributor to the major component profile.  There were inclusive findings on the minor profiles. (SEE DNA RESULTS - APRIL 2020.)

 

At trial, Ms. Wright attempted to change her story by saying that the girls were upstairs and Kirkland was moving around downstairs before he left the house.  After being impeached by her statement, she confessed that the women stayed in the living room until after Kirkland left.  She also said she didn't see Kirkland stash a gun or clothes in the living room. (See Wright's Statement and Trial Transcripts previously cited.)

 

When Mr. Kirkland was already out of the house, and after the police stopped Ms. Fuller's car, Springfield Police Lieutenant Ayala studied the windows of the house and testified that he had seen movement in the “windows on the [first floor], Cambridge Street side of the house.” ( SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF LT. AYALA'S TESTIMONY.)  (SEE PHOTO OF WINDOWS.) Those windows are to the living room, right next to where the hoodie, gloves, and gun were found.  With Lt. Ayala seeing movement there, the occupants remained in the living room after Kirkland left the house.

 

Notice that, even as these occupants devised a plan to incriminate Kirkland, no one ever said Kirkland put those items there until Carter met up with the prosecutor and state troopers at the end of the trial.  So the real question is, who put those items there?  Was it one of the occupants in the house to protect Trevin?  Was it the prosecutor or the state police who told Carter to say Kirkland put those items there? Too many things went wrong inside of that house, and there were too many lies and cover-ups by its occupants to get a real sense of what happened there.  The evidence presented here, in which much of it was purposefully kept from the jury, would've created more than just a “reasonable doubt” about Kirkland being the person who committed the barbershop shooting.

 

Also, there was a Previous Shooting in the Vicinity, with the Same M.O., in which Kirkland was NOT the Suspect. 

 

The Victim in the Barbershop Shooting may have been Targeted Because He was a Witness in the Previous Shooting

 

On April 26, 2011 (four days before the barbershop shooting), “a black male, wearing a black hooded sweatshirt w/ a white undershirt and black jeans [was] firing a gun at a blue Honda...  After firing the weapon, the male ran north on Rutland, across State Street, through the TD Bank North parking lot [in the same plaza where the barbershop is located], and onto Montrose Street.  Once on Montrose Street, the male entered a silver Nissan Maxima or Hyandai Sonata with a Tennessee license plate...  Officer R. Miller was combing the area of Cambridge Street when he came across a silver 2011 Hyandai Sonata with Tennessee plate# A8730N parked in front of 145 Cambridge Street.  ...While retracing the steps, Officer Daniele found a revolver-style handgun in the parking lot of 3 Rutland Street, a pair of batting-style gloves, and a cell phone in the parking lot of TD Bank North.”  (SEE POLICE REPORT, APRIL 26, 2011.)

Officer Miller received a call from a confidential informant, who stated that the male who fired the shots ran into a house at Cambridge and Burr Street [right next to where Sonata was parked].  Officers searched the address but were unable to locate the shooter.  MR. KING WAS ALSO A WITNESS TO THIS SHOOTING. The officers tagged the firearm, gloves, and phone.  The next day, they processed the Sonata, and “[t]wo latent impressions were developed on the interior of the front passenger door,” and five drink containers, a sweatshirt, and another glove were also found in the car.  Three fingerprint lifts were recovered from the drink containers.  The impressions from the car and containers were compared to Mr. Kirkland's fingerprint card.  No match was made.  (SEE POLICE INCIDENT REPORT.)

​

Mr. Kirkland's attorneys decided not to present the above EXCULPATORY evidence at his trial.

 

Nearly a year after Kirkland's trial, the State Police finally provided Kirkland with the DNA report for the gun and the batting gloves.  They could not detect DNA on the gun but obtained a mixture of DNA from at least two individuals on the batting gloves.  They compared the DNA detected on the gloves with Mr. Kirkland's, and Kirkland was excluded as the major contributor, and no finding for the minor.  (SEE  DNA REPORT).

 

Because of the DELAYED testing of the gloves, Mr. Kirkland was prevented from using that EXCULPATORY evidence at his trial. The authorities' delay was despite their own belief in the connection between the April 26th and the April 30th shootings.  The government and its officers knew there was a shooter at large in the vicinity of the barbershop, with the same m.o. as the barbershop shooter, with a possible motive to do something to the barber, and they knew Tamik Kirkland was not that shooter.  These possible links to the barbershop shooting (and shooter) were never exposed to the jury.

 

In all criminal prosecutions, the prosecutor's job is to seek the truth and administer justice, not to hide the truth to procure a conviction. In Mr. Kirkland's case, the government, at best, ignored all of the evidence that showed someone other than Kirkland could've committed the crime he was charged with and, at worst, helped keep that evidence away from the jury to procure Kirkland's WRONGFUL CONVICTION. This happens in many cases, especially when the court officers (district attorneys and defense attorneys) have further political aspirations, and all that matters is their political success. It is worth mentioning that from the start of Mr. Kirkland's case until right after his conviction, three attorneys involved in his cases were appointed to be (and became) judges. That's not a coincidence.

​

Kirkland's first defense attorney, John Ferrera, was taken off his case to become a Superior Court judge (a position in which one has to be appointed by the governor of Massachusetts).  Two district attorneys who handled Kirkland's cases became judges as well.  One of them also became a Superior Court judge.  The other became a Federal judge, whose appointment comes from the President of the United States.  The game of politics was definitely at play here.

​

In conclusion, Part 2 shows that more of Mr. Kirkland's constitutional rights were violated throughout his entire ordeal. The prosecutor did not administer justice, and Mr. Kirkland did not receive a fair trial. What happened to Mr. Kirkland happens to people all throughout this country and can happen to anyone. It's important that people stand together and stand up against these injustices so those in power can be held accountable.