Tavares David Calloway v. State of Florida
210 So. 3d 1160
| Fla. | 2017Background
- In January 1997 five men were found bound, blindfolded, and executed in an apartment in Miami; the case went cold until 1998.
- Tavares Calloway (arrested in May 1998) gave a long confession after an ~18-hour, multi-officer interrogation; he later recanted at trial, claiming the confession was false and induced by police pressure and promises.
- Co-defendant Antonio “Tote” Clark gave a statement implicating both men; latent prints from the scene matched Clark, not Calloway; some physical and testimonial evidence (pawned jewelry, eyewitness Strachan) corroborated parts of Calloway’s confession.
- At trial (2009) Calloway was convicted of five counts of first-degree murder and related offenses; a jury recommended death for each murder by 7–5 votes; the trial court found multiple aggravators (including HAC and CCP) and imposed death sentences.
- On appeal the Florida Supreme Court reviewed multiple claims (voir dire limits; admissibility and scope of expert testimony from Dr. Richard Ofshe; Confrontation Clause issues for a substitute medical examiner; other evidentiary and closing-argument claims) and found most claims meritless but concluded Hurst error required a new penalty phase.
Issues
| Issue | Calloway's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of voir dire (asking jurors whether they could still recommend life given multiple aggravators) | Voir dire was improperly restricted; defense needed to probe potential bias about being overwhelmed by certain aggravators | Questions would force jurors to pre-decide factual aggravators and would pre-try the case in voir dire | No abuse of discretion; trial court properly limited pretrial determinations in voir dire |
| Whether a Frye hearing was required for Dr. Ofshe (false-confession expert) | Frye required because Ofshe’s testimony relied on scientific studies and methodology about false confessions | Trial court could defer Frye until relevance arose; Ofshe’s testimony was admissible opinion evidence | Frye hearing should have been held (per Williamson), but failure was harmless here |
| Scope of Dr. Ofshe’s testimony (comparison to other evidence) | Court’s restrictions gutted the usefulness of Ofshe’s analysis (could not compare objectively knowable facts to confession) | Allowing credibility comparisons would improperly have expert vouch for or discredit witnesses | Court properly limited Ofshe from commenting on witness credibility or resolving factual conflicts; limiting testimony was not an abuse of discretion |
| Use of substitute medical examiner (Dr. Hyma testifying for Dr. Siebert) and Confrontation Clause | Admission of a surrogate violated Crawford/Melendez-Diaz because the autopsy declarant did not testify | Hyma offered his own independent opinion based on scene photos and reports and was subject to cross-examination; this is permitted (Smith, Williams) | No Confrontation Clause violation; even if error, it was harmless |
| Impeachment by nontestifying codefendant (Clark) | Use of Clark’s statements (not introduced wholesale) to impeach defense experts/Calloway violated Confrontation Clause/Bruton | Statements were used narrowly for impeachment, not substantive proof; impeachment use is permitted | Permissible: limited use for impeachment did not violate Confrontation Clause |
| Hurst sentencing error (nonunanimous jury recommendation) | Florida’s scheme letting judge and non-unanimous jury determine death factors violates Sixth Amendment per Hurst | State defended conviction but Hurst applies retroactively on direct review | Hurst requires jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt and unanimity for death; remand for new penalty phase (7–5 recommendation not sufficient) |
Key Cases Cited
- Chamberlain v. State, 881 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2004) (standard of review for voir dire rulings)
- Lavado v. State, 492 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1986) (trial court must permit questioning probing juror ability to follow defense theory)
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (general acceptance test for novel scientific evidence)
- Flanagan v. State, 625 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1993) (distinguishing pure opinion from profile/scientific expert testimony under Frye)
- Hadden v. State, 690 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1997) (Frye required for certain expert testimony on psychological effects)
- Williamson v. State, 994 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2008) (Dr. Ofshe testimony and Frye analysis)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause requires in‑court testimony or prior opportunity to cross-examine when witness is unavailable)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial; Confrontation rights apply)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (surrogate testimony cannot substitute for the original analyst where the report is testimonial)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (plurality on expert reliance on third‑party data and Confrontation Clause nuances)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (jury, not judge, must find facts necessary for death sentence)