Defense attorneys questioned newly disclosed cellphone evidence during the start of a jury trial for two men accused of assisting in the fatal shooting of a Baltimore barber.
Terrill Barfield, 39, and Jarvis Sir Goria Joyner, 35, appeared before Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Althea M. Handy. Barfield is represented by defense attorney Anne Bohen Stewart Hill, while defense attorney Jerry Rodriguez represents Joyner.
The defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit murder, reckless endangerment and other related charges in connection with the Jan. 12, 2024, fatal shooting of Deon Beasley at a barbershop in Southwest Baltimore on the 800 block of Washington Boulevard .
Before opening statements, the prosecutor informed the court that the State had received a cell phone extraction from forensic investigators the previous day. The evidence was still being uploaded, and the prosecutor was unsure when it would be available to the defense.
Judge Handy urged the prosecutor to provide the material as soon as possible.
Both defense attorneys requested time to review the newly disclosed evidence before continuing with the trial. Judge Handy denied their requests, and the jury entered the courtroom for opening statements.
According to the prosecution, two masked men dressed in dark clothing entered the barbershop and approached Beasley. A struggle occurred before Beasley was shot.
Beasley ran from the business and was chased through several nearby streets as additional shots were fired. He was transported to a hospital, where he died.
Approximately 30 minutes later, police stopped a Honda Odyssey after a pursuit. Barfield was reportedly driving, and Joyner was in the passenger seat.
The prosecutor acknowledged that neither Barfield nor Joyner shot Beasley. However, the State alleges that the Odyssey was used to transport and drop off the shooters.
Police recovered 9 mm and .22-caliber cartridge casings from the scene and observed a blood trail nearby. A City Watch security camera facing the barbershop also captured the incident, according to the prosecution.
Police recovered a cellphone from the Odyssey. The State alleges the phone belonged to Barfield and contained messages between him and a person identified as “J-Black,” whom investigators believe was Joyner.
Prosecutors also alleged that videos showing Beasley’s Instagram page were found on the phone.
Police separately recovered a .22-caliber firearm that forensic testing connected to the shooting. Investigators also recovered gloves, a jacket and a durag head covering near the scene. DNA collected from the clothing matched one of the shooters, according to the prosecution.
The State identified James Hammond and Lakeem Whitaker as the shooters. Prosecutors told jurors that Hammond uses the nickname “Jizzle” and alleged that a contact saved under that name was found in the cell phone recovered from the Odyssey.
During her opening statement, Hill argued that there was no direct evidence proving Barfield knew the shooting would occur or agreed to participate in it.
Hill said the recovered messages did not mention Beasley, the barbershop, the location of the shooting or a plan to commit the crime. She also noted that some of the videos discussed by prosecutors were created four days before the incident.
Rodriguez reminded jurors that the co-defendants could receive different verdicts despite being tried together. He argued that Joyner’s presence as a passenger in the Odyssey was not enough to prove he participated in a conspiracy.
Rodriguez also challenged the State’s claim that the Odyssey had suspiciously circled the area, arguing that a driver could circle a busy street while searching for parking.
The State’s first witness was an assistant medical examiner who was accepted by Judge Handy as an expert in forensic pathology.
The medical examiner testified that Beasley suffered two gunshot wounds to the head. He determined that Beasley died from multiple gunshot wounds and ruled the death a homicide.
During cross-examination, the witness acknowledged that it was not his responsibility to determine who committed the shooting.
The prosecution then called a police detective who conducted the cell phone extraction.
The detective testified about the extraction process and videos recovered from the device. During cross-examination, he acknowledged that he did not know who had been using the phone and that investigators did not obtain carrier or subscriber information identifying its user.
The detective also testified that the available data was limited to information stored on the phone after its most recent reset.
The trial is expected to continue.
