The Shooting of Tamik's Mother

​

On April 23, 2011, the eve of his mother's birthday, Tamik Kirkland called home to wish her a happy birthday, only to learn she was in the hospital suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. A female friend had taken his mother out to celebrate. As they returned to her driveway, someone ambushed them, firing multiple shots into the vehicle. Both women were struck several times.

Upon hearing the news, Tamik was devastated and psychologically traumatized. Overwhelmed by fear for his mother and desperate to understand what had happened, he made the emotional decision to leave the minimum security correctional facility where he was serving his sentence and return to Springfield, Massachusetts.

​

At the time, Tamik was nearing the end of a two-and-a-half- to four-year sentence on firearm charges. He had successfully completed correctional programs, was enrolled in college courses, had secured employment for his release, and was preparing to rebuild his life. His family was proud of the progress he had made, and his young daughter was looking forward to having her father home within months.

​

Everything changed with one phone call.

​

Because Tamik left a minimum-security facility with no walls or fences, his actions would typically have been classified as a walk away rather than an escape. Instead, the media and the courts labeled it an escape, creating a narrative that shaped public perception from the very beginning.

​

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

​

The Shooting/Murder Incident That Tamik Has Been Wrongfully Convicted Of

​

According to the Supreme Judicial Court Study Group on Eyewitness Evidence and several Supreme Judicial Court decisions, misidentification is the greatest source of wrongful convictions. Because eyewitness misidentifications have led to so many innocent people being convicted, the Study Group established best practice safeguards that law enforcement is expected to follow.

Dr. Deah S. Quinlivan, an eyewitness identification expert whose testimony and research have been widely accepted within the scientific community, testified during the evidentiary hearing on Tamik's motion for a new trial. Dr. Quinlivan explained these safeguards, why they exist, and how several were ignored in Tamik's case, reducing the reliability of Darryl King's identification of Tamik to less than 29%. 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 Supreme Judicial Court decisions, misidentification is the greatest source of wrongful convictions. Because eyewitness misidentifications have led to so many innocent people being convicted, the Study Group established best practice safeguards that law enforcement is expected to follow.

Dr. Deah S. Quinlivan, an eyewitness identification expert whose testimony and research have been widely accepted within the scientific community, testified during the evidentiary hearing on Tamik's motion for a new trial. Dr. Quinlivan explained these safeguards, why they exist, and how several were ignored in Tamik's case, reducing the reliability of Darryl King's identification of Tamik to less than 29%. SEE TRANSCRIPTS OF DR. QUINLIVAN'S TESTIMONY.
 

Safeguard #1): Make Sure ALL People in the Photo Array Match the Suspect's Description:
A suspect's photograph should never stand out from the others in a photo array based on a distinguishing characteristic. If it does, the identification procedure becomes unnecessarily suggestive:

Darryl King, a barber of more than twenty years and the only eyewitness to identify the shooter, told police the assailant was a Black male with cornrows. Police then presented him with a photo array containing eight Black males. Of those eight individuals, Tamik was the only person wearing cornrows. During his testimony, Mr. King admitted that he noticed Tamik was the only individual with cornrows when he viewed the photographs.

The Massachusetts State Police had thousands of photographs of Black males with braids. By law, they were supposed to include additional individuals matching that description. Instead, they presented Mr. King with a photo array in which Tamik's photograph stood out because it was the only one matching the description Mr. King had provided. SEE THE PHOTO ARRAYS.

 

Research has shown that when one photograph uniquely matches the witness's description, the witness's confidence can become artificially inflated because the selection appears obvious. In Tamik's case, that distinguishing characteristic was the braids.

This safeguard exists to prevent unnecessarily suggestive photo arrays, increase the reliability of eyewitness identifications, and reduce the risk of misidentification. Law enforcement failed to follow Safeguard #1.

​

Safeguard #2) Present the Photos Sequentially and End the Procedure if No Identification is Made:

Law enforcement should present photographs one at a time rather than allowing a witness to compare multiple photographs at once. If the witness requests to see the photographs again, the entire photo array should be presented sequentially a second time. If the witness still cannot identify anyone, the identification procedure is supposed to end.

Research has shown that simultaneous photo arrays encourage witnesses to compare faces and use the process of elimination rather than make a true identification. Witnesses often assume the suspect's photograph is included in the array and attempt to choose the person who most closely resembles the individual they remember, even when the actual perpetrator is not present.
Although officers initially presented the photographs one at a time, they later allowed Mr. King to hold and compare all eight photographs at once, turning the procedure into a simultaneous presentation.

When Mr. King was unable to identify anyone, officers allowed him to keep only four of the eight photographs to review again. After he still failed to make an identification, they allowed him to narrow his choices even further, stating that "It was between photographs 6 and 7." During that third review, while comparing only those two photographs, Mr. King selected the only individual wearing cornrows and stated, "Mainly look like #7." Even after being shown a suggestive photo array, Mr. King still struggled to identify Tamik as the shooter. SEE MR. KING'S IDENTIFICATION PROTOCOL. 

 

The identification procedure should have ended when Mr. King could not identify anyone. Instead, officers continued narrowing the choices until an identification was eventually made. Law enforcement disregarded Safeguard #2.
 

Safeguard #3) Use Double Blind Administration and Record the Procedure:

When photographs are presented to a witness, the officer conducting the procedure should not know who the suspect is or where the suspect's photograph appears in the array. This is known as double blind administration. The procedure should also be video recorded to preserve evidence of the reliability or unreliability of the identification.

Research has shown that when officers know who the suspect is and where the suspect's photograph is located, they may consciously or unconsciously influence the witness through words, gestures, or body language. These safeguards exist to prevent that from happening.

During the supposed double blind identification procedure with Mr. King, three Massachusetts State Police officers remained in the room. Two of those officers later testified that they believed Tamik was the suspect, knew where his photograph was located in the array, remained in the room while the third officer conducted the procedure, and failed to record the identification.
Without a recording, no one knows what occurred in that room while Mr. King struggled to identify the shooter. The very safeguard designed to protect the integrity of the identification process was ignored.

These safeguards exist for one reason: to reduce the risk of misidentifying innocent people. When law enforcement fails to follow them, the reliability of the identification is compromised. The safeguards in Tamik's case were ignored, creating the very conditions that have been recognized as the leading cause of wrongful convictions.
 

Media Manipulation

 

The media has a responsibility to report the facts, yet too often the public only hears the narrative the government wants them to hear.

Before trial, Tamik filed a motion to suppress the eyewitness identification. During that hearing, the identification issues discussed in the previous section were presented to the court. Buffy Spencer, a reporter for The Republican, attended the hearing. The following day, MassLive published her article under the headline, "Tamik Kirkland of Springfield definitely the man who shot him 11 times, Darryl King tells court."

The article emphasized Mr. King's certainty while repeatedly referencing the shooting of Tamik's mother. It failed to report that Mr. King had been shown what Tamik contends was an unnecessarily suggestive photo array, that a Massachusetts State Police trooper testified Mr. King used the process of elimination during the identification, or the numerous issues surrounding the identification procedure that were the very purpose of the hearing. SEE THE NEWS ARTICLE ABOUT THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS

​

The "Cornrows" Issue; False Testimony of Commonwealth Witnesses and Violations of Several Sixth Amendment Rights

 

The issue of cornrows was central to this case. Mr. King identified Tamik from an older photograph taken when he wore braids. At the time of the barbershop shooting, Tamik had a low haircut and could not have been wearing cornrows. Yet the Commonwealth presented witnesses who testified that he did have cornrows that day.

Proving that Tamik did not have cornrows at the time of the shooting was essential to his defense. His attorneys told the jury during opening statements that they would present evidence establishing that fact. SEE THE STATEMENT FROM DEFENSE'S OPENING.

​

False Testimony of Three of the Commonwealth's Witnesses:

 

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

 

Massachusetts State Police Trooper Stephen Gregorczyk also testified that Tamik had cornrows when he was arrested.
SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF TROOPER GREGORCZYK'S TESTIMONY.

 

Springfield Police Officer Erica Capoza testified as a rebuttal witness for the Commonwealth. The purpose of her testimony was to support the testimony of Ms. Wright and Trooper Gregorczyk by claiming Tamik had cornrows on the day of the shooting.

Officer Capoza testified that she accompanied Tamik in the ambulance to the hospital, remained in his presence for approximately twenty to twenty five minutes while he was suffering from multiple gunshot wounds, and clearly remembered him wearing cornrows. Her testimony regarding his condition is significant because the prosecutor later suggested that Tamik somehow removed his alleged cornrows and cut his hair while hospitalized. SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF OFFICER CAPOZA'S TESTIMONY.

 

Tamik's attorneys introduced hospital video footage and a still image taken the day after the shooting showing him in a hospital bed with tubes down his throat. They also introduced his booking photographs taken six days later by Detective Juan Estrada. In every image, Tamik's hair is cut low. SEE HOSPITAL VIDEO, MAY 1ST.  SEE BOOKING PHOTOS, MAY 6TH.

 

Detective Estrada reported that when he entered Tamik's hospital room, both police officers and correctional officers were guarding him. He also documented that Tamik's right hand was completely immobilized in a cast covering his wrist and fingers.

Those facts are important when considering the prosecutor's suggestion that Tamik somehow removed his alleged cornrows and cut his hair in the hospital without any officer witnessing it. SEE DET. ESTRADA'S REPORT.  

 

Tamik was Prevented from Presenting Exculpatory Evidence

 

Because the hospital video and photographs were taken after the braided assailant committed the shooting, Tamik sought to present photographs of himself taken days before the incident showing that he had a low haircut. Those images would have fulfilled his attorneys' promise to the jury by demonstrating that it was impossible for him to have had cornrows on the day of the shooting. They also would have exposed that the Commonwealth's witnesses falsely testified that Tamik had cornrows in an effort to make him match the shooter's description.

Rather than present this evidence, Tamik's own attorneys opposed him in court and prevented the jury from seeing the photographs, denying him his constitutional right to present favorable evidence in his defense through compulsory process.
SEE APRIL 10TH PHOTOS.  SEE APRIL 22ND PHOTOS.

​

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

 

When Tamik's attorneys informed the judge they were prepared to rest the defense without presenting the photographs, Tamik immediately objected on the record, stating, "No, not resting," and attempted to address the court himself. His attorneys stopped him, told him he could not address the court, and requested a sidebar conference with the judge even though the jury was not present.

Sidebar conferences exist to prevent jurors from hearing matters they should not consider during deliberations. Because the jury was already out of the courtroom, there was no legitimate reason to conduct the discussion at sidebar. Instead, the issue was discussed outside the public's hearing while Tamik was prevented from fully explaining his position.

During that sidebar conference, Tamik's attorneys discussed the issue with the judge without allowing Tamik to explain why the photographs were critical to his defense. According to Tamik, this violated his constitutional right to be present during a critical stage of the proceedings and created an apparent conflict of interest because his attorneys were defending their own decisions rather than advocating for his defense.

While Tamik was excluded from the discussion, his attorneys misrepresented the issue to the court instead of acknowledging that they had failed to investigate the women shown in the April photographs, despite Tamik requesting they do so months before trial. After the sidebar ended, the defense rested without presenting the photographs to the jury. SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS; TAMIK SPOKE UP.

 

When Officer Capoza completed her rebuttal testimony, the judge called for a recess. In protest of what he believed was his attorneys "selling him out," Tamik refused to return to the courtroom. The judge directed court officers to bring him from the bullpen and cleared the courtroom of everyone except Tamik, the court officers, his attorneys, and his mother so she could persuade him to continue with the trial.   SEE THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF TAMIK'S PROTEST.

 

During that off the record conference, Tamik explained to his mother and attorneys that the hospital photographs taken after the shooting did not prove anything because the prosecutor would simply argue that he cut his hair while hospitalized. He insisted the jury needed to see the photographs taken before the shooting showing his hair was too short to have been cornrowed. He argued that those photographs would prove he could not have matched the eyewitness description and would expose that two police officers had testified falsely. He continued objecting that his attorneys were violating his Sixth Amendment right to present exculpatory evidence. His attorneys refused to present the photographs.

Although Tamik told his mother he believed he was being railroaded, he ultimately agreed to return to the courtroom and complete the trial.

After Tamik objected on the record and made clear that he would not remain silent about his constitutional rights, his attorneys attempted to repair the damage by showing the photographs to the prosecutor and asking him to agree to let the jury see them. Those efforts were unsuccessful. SEE THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE ATTORNEY/PROSECUTOR DISCUSSION. SEE DA STIPULATION LETTER,

 

The following day, Tamik addressed the court by having one of his attorneys read a letter into the record. In that letter, he explained that he had been requesting for several months that his attorneys investigate a witness and present evidence proving he could not have been the Black male with braids described by the eyewitness. He asserted that his attorneys denied him his constitutional right to compulsory process by refusing to present evidence favorable to his defense. SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF THE ATTORNEY READING THE LETTER.

 

After the letter was read, the judge asked defense counsel whether they had attempted to locate the woman shown in the April photographs. Rather than answer directly, counsel sidestepped the question. The record reflects they never attempted to contact the witness. Instead, they explained they had tried to negotiate with the prosecutor to allow the photographs into evidence.

​

Those negotiations failed because the prosecutor would only agree if he could argue to the jury that Tamik's hair had grown long enough to be cornrowed in the eight days between the photographs and the shooting. Tamik maintains that theory was scientifically impossible and defeated the very purpose of introducing the photographs. The judge later made the same proposal, which defense counsel declined. As a result, the trial concluded without the jury ever seeing the photographs that Tamik argues proved he could not have had cornrows on the day of the shooting.

​

To reject this claim on appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that decisions regarding which witnesses to call and what evidence to present belong to counsel rather than the defendant. According to the court, a defendant who chooses representation by counsel gives those decisions to the attorney unless he elects to represent himself.

​

Tamik contends that interpretation violates the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees an accused both the right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and the right to the assistance of counsel. The Constitution does not state that a defendant must surrender one right in order to exercise the other. SEE FARETTA V. CALIFORNIA, 422 U.S. 806, 818-820 (1975), CITING THE 6TH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

 

Tamik further argues that courts have improperly transferred the constitutional right to present a defense from the accused to defense counsel. While tactical decisions during trial belong to attorneys, he contends that decisions involving the investigation and presentation of evidence before trial belong to the defendant whose liberty is at stake. According to Tamik, allowing attorneys to override those decisions undermines the Sixth Amendment and affects every citizen facing criminal prosecution.

​

For that reason, Tamik maintains his conviction should be overturned. SEE KIRKLAND'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

 

The prosecutor also relied on the testimony of Carolyn Wright, Trooper Gregorczyk, and Officer Capoza, all of whom testified that Tamik had cornrows on the day of the shooting. Despite possessing photographs that Tamik contends disproved that testimony, the prosecutor did not correct the record. Instead, during closing arguments, he suggested Tamik must have cut his hair while hospitalized, arguing that the hospital photographs were unclear and that his hairstyle could have changed before the booking photographs were taken six days later. SEE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF D.A.'S CLOSING ARGUMENT.

 

Had the April photographs been presented to the jury, Tamik contends the prosecutor could not have advanced that theory and instead would have been required to explain why multiple witnesses testified that he had cornrows when the photographs showed otherwise.

The jury ultimately accepted the Commonwealth's theory and found Tamik guilty. Following his conviction, he filed a motion for a new trial raising these issues. During the evidentiary hearing, three witnesses testified in support of his claims. However, one of his own trial attorneys, Nikolas Andreopoulos, testified against him in defense of the decisions made during the trial. 

​

Post-Conviction Evidence

 

Tiara Galbreath, the woman pictured with Tamik in the April 10th photographs, testified that she visited him at the correctional facility every other weekend because it was her weekend off from work. She authenticated the April 10th photographs taken in the facility's visiting room just twenty days before the barbershop shooting and testified that they accurately reflected Tamik's appearance at that time.

Ms. Galbreath described his hairstyle as "a low haircut... close to the head," explaining that "He was trying to grow waves." She also testified that she provided those photographs to Attorney Andreopoulos in May or June of 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. Mr. Smith was the barber who cut Tamik's hair before the April 10th and April 22nd visits. He testified that he cut Tamik's hair every other week using a Number 1 clipper attachment, leaving his hair approximately one sixteenth of an inch long.

In Mr. Smith's expert opinion, it would have taken at least six months for Tamik's hair to grow long enough to be cornrowed after receiving that haircut. He further testified that Tamik's hair in the April 10th and April 22nd photographs was consistent with the haircuts he personally gave him. SEE THE EVIDENTIARY TRANSCRIPTS OF MR. SMITH'S TESTIMONY.

​

The testimony of these three witnesses, together with the April photographs, hospital images, and booking photographs, establishes that Tamik did not and could not have had cornrows on the day of the shooting.

The motion judge and the Supreme Judicial Court refused to address the impossibility of Tamik having cornrows that day because doing so would also require addressing the testimony of two police officers who stated he wore cornrows. Members of the prosecution's case presented testimony that Tamik contends was false, and the prosecutor did nothing to correct it, violating his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial.

For that reason alone, Tamik maintains his conviction should be overturned. Instead, this issue was ignored. We cannot allow it to be swept under the rug.

​

 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

​

Nikolas Andreopoulos, one of Tamik's trial attorneys, testified during the evidentiary hearing that Darryl King was adamant the barbershop shooter wore braids. He also acknowledged that Officer Erica Capoza testified Tamik had braids on the day of the shooting and agreed that whether Tamik had braids was relevant to the defense. To challenge that testimony, the defense introduced the hospital video and booking photographs showing Tamik without braids after the shooting.

Andreopoulos also testified that Tamik wanted the jury to see photographs taken before the shooting showing he had a low haircut. However, he chose not to present them because he did not want the jury focused on Tamik's walk away from the correctional facility or what could have happened during the eight days before the shooting. He also claimed he was concerned about what the women in the photographs might say if they testified. SEE EVIDENTIARY TRANSCRIPTS OF ATTORNEY ANDREOPOULOS'S TESTIMONY. 

 

Those explanations do not withstand scrutiny.

First, Tamik's walk away from the correctional facility was already before the jury and had already become part of the defense's own strategy. During opening statements, Attorney Andreopoulos told the jury that Tamik was "laying low from the police." During closing arguments, defense counsel again reminded the jury that Tamik was "an escapee" who was "on the run" and "laying low." The claim that the photographs were withheld to keep that information from the jury is therefore inconsistent with the defense's own presentation. SEE DEFENSE'S OPENING STATEMENT.  SEE THE DEFENSE'S CLOSING ARGUMENT.  So this keeping “escape out” excuse makes no sense.

 

Second, Andreopoulos admitted he never consulted a barber or hair expert to determine whether Tamik's hair could have grown long enough to be cornrowed during the eight-day period before the shooting. He acknowledged that obtaining such an opinion "couldn't have hurt." Had he conducted that investigation, he would have learned what both expert witnesses later confirmed: it was scientifically impossible for Tamik's hair to have grown long enough to be cornrowed in that period.

Third, although Tamik repeatedly asked his attorneys to investigate and contact the women shown in the April photographs, Andreopoulos admitted he could not remember attempting to locate the woman in the April 22nd photograph. Instead, he testified that he and co-counselPart "pretty much made a decision" not to pursue her.

After refusing to investigate those witnesses, the defense then relied on not knowing what they would say as justification for denying Tamik the opportunity to present them at trial.

The record demonstrates that Tamik repeatedly requested his attorneys investigate witnesses and present evidence supporting his defense. Those requests were denied.

As a result, the jury never saw photographs taken before the shooting that showed Tamik's hair was too short to have been cornrowed. The jury also never heard testimony from witnesses who could have corroborated that fact.
These failures all centered on the same issue: identifying the shooter. Instead of presenting evidence supporting Tamik's innocence, his attorneys prevented the jury from hearing it.

This case should concern every citizen. When defense counsel, prosecutors, and the courts prevent a defendant from presenting evidence supporting his innocence, the integrity of the justice system is called into question. What happened to Tamik could happen to anyone. That is why we must continue to stand against injustices like these.