​​Under the law, if evidence exists that another person may have committed the crime, a defendant has the right to present that evidence to the jury. This is known as a Third Party Culprit Defense and is one of the primary ways to establish reasonable doubt. Denying a defendant that right violates the Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense.

 

In Tamik's case, the Commonwealth possessed evidence from its own investigation indicating that another person may have committed the crime. Tamik was not allowed to fully present that evidence to the jury. This evidence was critical because it not only raised serious doubt about Tamik's guilt, but also could have impeached the statements of his codefendant, Trevin Smith, who later became a Commonwealth witness, along with several other witnesses.  (SEE TREVIN'S STATEMENT.) ​

​​​

Physical Description of the April 30th Barbershop Shooter, Tamik, and the Third-Party Culprit

​

According to the evidence, witnesses described the shooter as a medium brown skinned Black male wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and cornrows. The shooter entered the barbershop, fired two firearms, killing one customer and seriously wounding the barber. After the shooting, witnesses reported that he fled on foot down Montrose Street toward Cambridge and Burr Streets before bringing several items to the duplex located on that corner.

As discussed in Part I, Tamik was misidentified through a flawed photo array in which he was the only individual wearing cornrows, even though the evidence showed he could not have had cornrows at the time of the shooting.

In addition to the cornrows, multiple witnesses 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”.)

​​

Tamik was described during trial as a dark skinned individual. Not one witness described the shooter as dark skinned. Nevertheless, during closing arguments, the prosecutor argued that witnesses repeatedly described the shooter as having "darkness of skin." (SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF D.A.'S CLOSING ARGUMENT - COMPLEXION.)

 

But when the third-party culprit, who was once a prospective witness for the prosecutor, turned himself in four days after the shooting in New York City, the arrest report described his hairstyle as "BRAIDS" and his skin tone as "MEDIUM."  (SEE ARREST REPORT.)

 

In his statement against Tamik, Trevin admitted that he fled Springfield immediately after the shooting and surrendered in New York City four days later. Tamik was not permitted to present that exculpatory evidence to the jury.

Witnesses described the shooter as wearing a black hooded sweatshirt. Karen Fuller testified that Trevin wore a black hoodie "all the time" and was wearing one when she saw him in the neighborhood on the afternoon of the shooting. However, according to the arrest report, Trevin was wearing a snorkel jacket when he surrendered in New York City. This was another piece of exculpatory evidence that Tamik was not allowed to present at trial.

Witnesses also stated that the shooter fired two firearms inside the barbershop. Immediately after the shooting, Karen Fuller told Springfield Police Officer J.B. Stern that Trevin was armed with more than one firearm. She also told officers that Trevin talked about shootings, was involved in "a war going on," and possessed "a lot of guns." (SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF OFFICER STERN'S TESTIMONY.)  (SEE TRANSCRIPTS OF MS. FULLER'S INTERVIEW BY POLICE - SHOOTOUTS/GUNS.) 

 

Witnesses further stated that the shooter fled the scene on foot toward Burr and Cambridge Streets. Trooper Brendan O'Toole testified that Karen Fuller told him Trevin appeared "hot and sweaty" when she saw him shortly after the shooting. During his initial interview with Ms. Fuller, she also told Trooper O'Toole that Trevin regularly stayed at the house on the corner of Cambridge and Burr Streets, where she frequently picked him up and delivered food. (SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF TROOPER O'TOOLE.)   (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 women at the house, Linka Baulkman, Carolyn Wright, and Lakeanna Carter, gave statements to police claiming Tamik entered the house, pointed guns at them, and threatened them. At trial, two witnesses admitted those statements were false. Because Tamik had a warrant for leaving the correctional facility, they did not tell police that he was already at the house while the barbershop shooting was taking place. It is common sense that, with their children present, they feared being charged with harboring a fugitive or risking the loss of their children. Instead, they focused attention on Tamik while protecting Trevin, with whom they had a closer relationship, by falsely claiming he was not at the house that day.

On the first page of Trevin's statement, he omits being at Carol Baulkman's house on the day of the shooting. On the last page, he claims he "won't even be there, [he] just go there and zip out," contradicting Karen Fuller's statements. In her police statement, Linka Baulkman identified Trevin from a photo array and claimed she did not get along with him, that he was not at her mother's house that day, and that the last time she saw him was earlier that week. SEE MS. BAULKMAN'S STATEMENT TO THE POLICE.

​

Several weeks later, however, Ms. Baulkman testified before the grand jury and admitted she lied about her relationship with Trevin, how often he was at the house, and that he was, in fact, there approximately ten minutes before Tamik allegedly entered through the back door, consistent with the timeline of the barbershop shooting. Tamik was not allowed to present that exculpatory evidence at trial.

In her original statement, Carolyn Wright, the same witness who falsely testified about Tamik having cornrows, claimed she did not know the other people in the house and that they left before Tamik entered, threatening everyone with a gun.

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. (SEE MS. WRIGHT'S STATEMENT). 

 

Before trial, the defense investigator obtained an affidavit from Ms. Wright in which she admitted she lied when she told police Tamik entered the house threatening them with a gun. After the prosecutor received that affidavit and Ms. Wright faced possible perjury or obstruction charges, the prosecutor and state troopers met with her. Following that meeting, she suddenly claimed to remember Tamik asking for a change of clothes.

At trial, Ms. Wright testified that Tamik asked for a shirt and admitted he never put a gun to anyone's head. She also continued to maintain that Trevin was not at the house that day. (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 Ms. Baulkman's grand jury testimony established that Trevin had been there, the prosecutor knew Ms. Carter's original statement was false as well. After meeting with the prosecutor and state police, Ms. Carter also suddenly claimed to remember Tamik asking for a change of clothes, that Ms. Baulkman gave him clothing, that he possessed two guns instead of one, and that he placed one of the guns in a recliner.

After the Commonwealth agreed not to prosecute Ms. Carter for her prior false statements, she acknowledged that Trevin had been at the house earlier that day. Even so, Tamik was still prevented from presenting evidence that Trevin had been at the house approximately ten minutes before the shooting and again immediately afterward. SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF IMMUNITY.)  (SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF MS. CARTER'S TESTIMONY.)

 

All three women admitted giving false statements, and each faced potential Fifth Amendment concerns. However, the Commonwealth agreed not to prosecute only Ms. Wright and Ms. Carter if they testified. Tamik attempted to call Ms. Baulkman as a witness so the jury could hear her truthful testimony, but she was not offered the same protection. Faced with possible prosecution for her prior statements and grand jury testimony, she exercised her Fifth Amendment right not to testify.

​

Ballistics, GSR, and DNA

The Commonwealth alleged that the barbershop shooter fled the scene and discarded paraphernalia, including firearms, at Carol's house. With police surrounding the area and everyone expecting them to arrive, Tamik left the house carrying one of the firearms that had been brought there. That firearm was later alleged to be one of the weapons used in the barbershop shooting.

​

Consistent with the testimony of the Commonwealth's firearms expert, it is common for individuals to share firearms. Therefore, Tamik's possession of one of those firearms did not establish that he was the barbershop shooter. At the time, Tamik was already attempting to avoid police because of the warrant issued after he left the correctional facility. In an effort to escape, he hid in the trunk of a vehicle, where he was ultimately found with the firearm.

​

Inside the house, police recovered two unrelated firearms from the basement. They also recovered the second firearm allegedly used in the barbershop shooting, along with a black hoodie and gloves, from in or near a recliner in the living room. A second black hoodie was recovered from an upstairs bedroom.

​

The gloves and hoodie recovered from the living room tested positive for gunshot residue, and DNA testing identified a mixture of at least four individuals, with Tamik matching the major profile. No DNA was recovered from either firearm.

 (SEE DNA CONCLUSIONS.)

 

At trial, DNA expert Elisse Coronda testified that as many as five individuals could have contributed DNA to those items. She also testified that she could not determine how long the DNA had been there, whether Tamik was the last person to wear the clothing, or whether another contributor had worn it more recently. (SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF DNA EXPERT.)

 

The authorities never compared the third-party culprit's DNA to any of the remaining DNA profiles.

The second hoodie recovered from the upstairs bedroom was never tested by the authorities. Nearly nine years later, Tamik obtained independent testing by forensic scientists Tarah Helsel and Allison Laneve, along with DNA analyst Lyndsey Sanney.

The GSR analysis found no three-component particles but identified one two-component particle on the right sleeve, indicating potential gunshot residue despite nearly nine years having passed.
 

DNA testing identified a mixture of at least three individuals. Tamik was excluded as a contributor to the major DNA profile, although the minor profiles remained inconclusive. (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 testimony by claiming the women were upstairs while Tamik moved around downstairs before leaving the house. After being confronted with her prior statement, she admitted the women remained in the living room until after Tamik left and acknowledged she never saw him place a firearm or clothing in the living room. (SEE WRIGHT'S STATEMENT AND TRIAL TRANSCRIPT PREVIOUSLY CITED.)

 

After Tamik had already left the house and police stopped Karen Fuller's vehicle, Springfield Police Lieutenant Ayala testified that he observed movement in the first-floor windows facing Cambridge Street. ( SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF LT. AYALA'S TESTIMONY.)  (SEE PHOTO OF WINDOWS.) 

​

Those windows looked directly into the living room where the firearm, hoodie, and gloves were recovered. Lieutenant Ayala's testimony established that people remained in the living room after Tamik left the house.

​

Notably, none of the occupants initially claimed that Tamik placed those items in the living room. That allegation did not arise until Ms. Carter met with the prosecutor and state police near the end of the trial.

​

The question remains, who placed those items there? Was it one of the occupants attempting to protect Trevin? Or did Ms. Carter change her testimony after meeting with the prosecutor and state police? Too many inconsistencies, false statements, and omissions surrounded what occurred inside that house. Much of this evidence was never presented to the jury, despite its significance in creating reasonable doubt.

 

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

 

Four days before the barbershop shooting, on April 26, 2011, police responded to reports of a Black male wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, white undershirt, and black jeans firing a handgun before fleeing through the same neighborhood. Officers followed the suspect's path to Cambridge Street, where they located a silver Hyundai Sonata with Tennessee license plates parked near the corner of Cambridge and Burr Streets.

Along that route, officers recovered a revolver, batting gloves, and a cellular telephone. (SEE POLICE REPORT, APRIL 26, 2011.)

A confidential informant told police the shooter ran into a house at Cambridge and Burr Streets. Officers searched the residence but were unable to locate the suspect. Darryl King was also a witness to this earlier shooting.

Police processed the firearm, gloves, cellphone, vehicle, and several other items for evidence. Fingerprints recovered from the vehicle and drink containers were compared with Tamik's fingerprints, and no matches were found.
(SEE POLICE INCIDENT REPORT.)

​

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

 

Nearly a year after the trial, the Massachusetts State Police finally provided Tamik with the DNA report for the firearm and the batting gloves. No DNA was detected on the firearm. However, DNA testing of the batting gloves revealed a mixture from at least two individuals. Tamik was excluded as the major contributor, and no conclusion could be made regarding the minor contributor.

(SEE  DNA REPORT).

 

Because the DNA testing of the gloves was delayed until after trial, Tamik was denied the opportunity to present that exculpatory evidence to the jury. This delay occurred even though the authorities believed there was a connection between the April 26th and April 30th shootings. The government and its officers knew there was a shooter at large in the same area, using the same method of operation, with a possible motive connected to the barbershop shooting, and they also knew Tamik was not that shooter. Yet none of those possible connections were ever presented to the jury.

In every criminal prosecution, a prosecutor's duty is to seek the truth and administer justice, not to withhold evidence in order to secure a conviction. In Tamik's case, the government either ignored evidence that pointed to another possible perpetrator or helped keep that evidence from the jury, resulting in what Tamik maintains was his wrongful conviction. This is not unique to one case. It happens throughout the criminal justice system, particularly when court officers have political ambitions and convictions become more important than justice.

From the beginning of Tamik's case through the period immediately following his conviction, three attorneys involved in the case were appointed to judgeships.

Tamik's first defense attorney, John Ferrara, left the case after being appointed as a Massachusetts Superior Court Judge. Two prosecutors who handled Tamik's case also became judges. One was appointed to the Massachusetts Superior Court, and the other was appointed as a United States District Judge. The role politics played in this case cannot be ignored.
In conclusion, Part II demonstrates additional constitutional violations that Tamik contends denied him a fair trial. The prosecutor failed to administer justice, and critical exculpatory evidence never reached the jury. What happened to Tamik can happen to anyone. That is why it is important for people to stand together, demand accountability, and speak out against injustices within the criminal justice system