Callahan v. Robtoy

How later courts describe this case

• finding that expert testimony describing results of luminal testing met section 2702 requirements; Frye not cited even though Court found it had never approved luminal testing
• incorporating a higher standard: no "substantial possibility" any reasonable juror would have rested a verdict on improper interpretation of "anti-sympathy" instruction given in the first stage and incorporated by reference into the second stage of a capital murder trial
• death penalty supported by evidence that defendant armed himself with shotgun and shells before robbing grocery store with codefendant where three people were killed
• there, as here, cross-examination exposed. the hair expert's imprecise and unscientific conclusion that a person can be positively identified by hair
• the state constitution likewise is satisfied when a defendant receives the peremptory challenges allowable pursuant to state law
• defendant murdered three grocery employees in back room of the store — see also codefendant's case Fowler v. State, 779 P.2d 580 (Okl.Cr.1989), ce rt. denied, 494 U.S. 1060, 110 S.Ct. 1537, 108 L.Ed.2d 775 (1990)
• defendant murdered three grocery employees in back room of the store — see also codefendant's case Fowler v. State, 779 P.2d 580 (Okl.Cr.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1060, 110 S.Ct. 1537, 108 L.Ed.2d 775 (1990)
• defen-dant murdered three grocery employees in back room of the store — see also codefendant's case Fowler v. State, 779 P.2d 580 (Okl.Cr.1989), ce rt. denied, 494 U.S. 1060, 110 S.Ct. 1537, 108 L.Ed.2d 775 (1990)