On the night of June 29, 1999, the purported victim was walking home from a Narcotics Anonymous meeting after getting married earlier in the day, when a man allegedly approached him and robbed him at gunpoint, taking the victim’s wedding ring and gold necklace. A mere few hours later, police stopped a vehicle for erratic driving miles away from the alleged robbery. During the stop, the officer saw and collected a gold necklace from the vehicle and noted that one of the passengers, Tavares Hutchinson, matched the description of the perpetrator of the earlier robbery provided by the victim, despite the only matching characteristics were that he was a black man with a gold necklace in his possession. Tavares stated that he purchased the necklace and denied committing a robbery. Police did not find the victim’s ring. Officers brought the necklace to the victim, who positively identified it as his necklace and then, in a single-person show-up at the location of the traffic stop, the victim identified Tavares as the person who robbed him. On January 19, 2000, Tavares was found guilty of robbery with a weapon and resisting without violence based solely on the one-person show-up identification and the positive identification of the necklace.

 

In February 2024, Tavares requested that the Broward Conviction Review Unit (“CRU”) within the State Attorney’s Office review his claim of factual innocence.  The CRU requested that the Innocence Project of Florida (“IPF”) assist Tavares and IPF took him on as a client. During a two-year collaborative investigation supported by a joint U.S. Department of Justice Grant, the CRU and IPF developed significant evidence both undermining the integrity of the conviction and pointing to Tavares’ factual innocence:

 

 

• The Gold Necklace in Tavares’ Car was Not the Victim’s Stolen Necklace: the victim identified his stolen necklace as being a 14k gold Gucci-style necklace with little holes, silver qualities and a unique pendant on the clasp. Examination of the necklace collected from the car from which Tavares was detained demonstrated that it was fake gold. Additionally, the necklace in evidence was Figaro-style without holes, was completely yellow gold with no silver qualities and lacked the unique pendant on the clasp.

• The Victim Recanted His Identification: In 2020, the victim independently provided two sworn affidavits recanting his identification of Tavares as the perpetrator and stating his belief that Tavares was innocent. In a 2025 sworn statement to the CRU, the victim affirmed his recantation, that he misidentified Tavares and indicated it was partially based on a woman coming to his home subsequent to crime stating that she found the victim’s ID card in the possession of her brother, who matched the description of the perpetrator. The CRU could not establish any connection between this woman or her brother to Tavares.

• Tavares Did Not Match the Description of the Perpetrator: Tavares did not match the age, height, weight, clothing, speech pattern or appearance of teeth of the perpetrator as described by the victim. Moreover, Tavares had visible scars and an obvious physical deformity that were not identified by the victim. Additionally, Tavares was not in possession of the victim’s wedding ring nor did he have a gun in his possession when he was detained shortly after the crime.

• Expert Opinion Further Undermined the Reliability of the Show-Up Identification: Dr. Lora Levett, the past president of the American Psychology-Law Society and renowned expert in the science of eyewitness evidence, reviewed the show-up identification in this case and identified 12 different infirmities in the composition and administration of the identification procedure that further undermined the reliability of the victim’s eyewitness identification.

• It is Unclear Whether the Crime Even Occurred: The purported victim struggled with drug addiction at the time of the alleged crime and witness statements and inconsistent statements by the victim leave open the possibility that the purported victim sold his necklace and wedding ring for drugs and fabricated the crime to cover it up.