Kevin Herrick Wrongful Conviction, Kevin is Next

Nine (9) partial latent fingerprints of sufficient comparison value were recovered from the crime scene by Officer Joiner. 

• Two (2) prints from the exterior side of the master bedroom doorknob.
• Six (6) prints to include a partial palm print from the sliding glass door.
• One (1) print from the exterior side of the second bedroom doorknob.

These prints were tested for comparison to the fingerprints of Kevin by Largo Police Officer Barone who determined that “all six (6) fingerprints from the sliding glass door were not similar to Kevin” on May 23, 1990. In other words, they did not match.

• Fifteen (15) days later, on June 5, 1990, Officer Barone reports that all four (4) prints from the sliding glass door match the victim, Scott Barfield.
• Both Scott and Cheryl testified that the assailant was the only one to touch the sliding glass door and they both confirmed that Scott did not touch the sliding door during the incident. So how did Scott's prints appear in the blood smears on the glass door which were preserved for testing?
• So… What happened to the other two (2) prints from the sliding glass door that don't match Scott or Kevin?
• And... what ever became of the two (2) prints on the exterior side of the master bedroom doorknob and the one (1) print from the other bedroom doorknob?  
• Both Scott and Cheryl also confirmed that police had told them that the fingerprints on the door matched Kevin and that they still believed it to be true at trial.

Kevin’s trial attorney, Ed Lienster did not investigate, challenge, or present any fingerprint evidence during the trial. 

• The prosecution stated that the fingerprints all matched Scott, it was simply unfortunate that Kevin did not leave his behind.
• This was a misleading nonfactual statement made by the prosecution because the fingerprints were not all accounted for.
• Furthermore, it was Largo Police who performed the internal fingerprint analysis and not a forensic specialist. 
• This is the same Largo police who told Cheryl and Scott that the fingerprints did match Kevin. 

Considering the inherent conflict of the Largo Police and their episodes of misconduct, independent fingerprint examinations should have been performed.

 Head and pubic hair samples from Kevin Herrick, Scott Barfield and Cheryl Hagan were sent to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for forensic comparison to hair evidence which was collected at the crime scene from Cheryl and Scotts bedsheets. 

• On June 29, 1990, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement report found that the microanalysis of the hairs obtained from the bedsheets did not match Kevin.
• Additionally, the FDLE analysis concluded that some of the hair samples collected did not match Cheryl or Scott either.
• So, whose hair is it then? Obviously, someone else was in that bed.

Amazingly, this physical evidence is not discussed at all during the trial.

• When Kevin questioned his defense attorney, Mr. Lienster told him that the FDLE fiber analysis was inconclusive. 

In 2007 The Innocence Project represented Kevin in post-conviction proceedings that sought to have the DNA tested from the hairs recovered from the victim’s bedsheets for the specific purpose of identifying the actual assailant in this case.

• The motion for post-conviction DNA testing was inexplicably denied, so the Innocence Project had no option except to conclude their representation of Kevin.

The evidence collected from Kevin’s room included jeans with a black belt with a bronze-colored buckle. 

• This is significant because there is no mention of a large belt buckle in the Largo Police reports or the forensic reports. 
• This is because Kevin never owned a large belt buckle. 

The belt obtained by police is a standard belt, which does not match Cheryl's testimony, yet this evidence was never introduced at trial. This is important because the large belt buckle which Kevin never possessed is one of the only consistent forms of identification, which is not dependent on Largo police or Scott, that Cheryl illustrates as her conclusion that Kevin is her assailant.

The only blood evidence collected in this case was found smeared on the sliding glass door at Scott and Cheryl’s apartment and on Scott’s clothing. All of the blood evidence matches Scott’s blood type “O”.

• The police report states that the jeans recovered in Kevin’s bedroom appeared to have blood stains on them.
• Turns out that the stains on Kevin’s jeans are from construction adhesives from work. 
• Yet both victims testified at trial that the police had told them that bloody clothes were recovered from the Kevin’s bedroom and that they still believed it to be true.

The police report also states that a small lock blade knife and a gun were found tucked under the mattress in Kevin’s room.

• While the police report states that the knife appeared to have dried blood on it, this also turned out to be inaccurate speculation for which the victims were told by police and yet the victims still believed to be true at trial.
• It also does not appear that the knife was forensically compared to the wounds Scott sustained. How do we even know this is the knife that stabbed Scott?
• It also does not make sense that Kevin would choose to bring a puny knife to commit this crime when he had a gun available. Why not bring the gun instead?