Opinion ID: 1836985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Unqualified Expert Witness

Text: Butler next contends DNA expert Dr. Jeannie Eberhardt was not qualified to testify to the frequency to which DNA profiles occurred in the population because she did not assist in creating the database that she used to determine the frequencies nor was she trained in statistics. We disagree and affirm the trial court's finding that the DNA expert was qualified to give an expert opinion. DNA testing requires a two-step process, one biochemical and the other statistical. The first step uses principles of molecular biology and chemistry to determine that two DNA samples look alike. The second step uses statistics to estimate the frequency of the profile in the population. Both steps must satisfy the Frye test. See Brim v. State, 695 So.2d 268 (Fla.1997). The Frye test requires that the scientific principles or methodologies to which an expert testifies must be generally accepted in the scientific community before they will be considered valid in the courts. See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). Butler relies on Murray v. State, 692 So.2d 157 (Fla.1997), in arguing that Dr. Eberhardt lacked the requisite knowledge to testify about her DNA testing and population frequencies. In Murray, the expert who testified had no knowledge about the database on which his population frequency calculations were based, repeatedly evaded questions about the procedures he used in his testing, and misled the court as to the scientific community's acceptance of PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) DNA testing [5] at that time. This Court ultimately found the expert was not qualified, but further held assembly or creation of the database is not necessary to testify to results. However, a sufficient knowledge of the database grounded in the study of authoritative sources is necessary. Murray, 692 So.2d at 164. Contrary to Butler's assertion, Dr. Eberhardt was qualified to testify as to population frequencies of the DNA profile she discovered. Although she did not participate in the creation of the database, she was familiar with samples from which the database was created. Moreover, Dr. Eberhardt stated the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in Tampa conducted validation studies of its own on the database she used. Although these studies were conducted before she began working there, her training consisted of conducting revalidations of those databases. Butler's argument at trial and in his brief before this Court that a person who was not involved in creating a database and who has no knowledge other than that contained in an article about a database cannot testify to her personal knowledge of the validity of a database misstates the holdings in Brim and Murray. In Brim we held the second step of the DNA analysis process, statistical probabilities, must meet the Frye test, and in Murray we found a particular expert unqualified whose testimony did not adequately give the population frequency of a DNA profile. Butler's argument, however, overlooks the fact that the Murray decision also states creation of the database is not a necessary prerequisite to testifying; a sufficient knowledge of the authorities pertinent to the database is an adequate basis on which to render an opinion. In Murray, the unqualified expert stated Murray's DNA sample matched the one recovered from the crime scene and 91.8 percent of the population would be anticipated to have different DNA types. Murray v. State, 692 So.2d at 163. This Court properly characterized that testimony as not enlightening since it did not demonstrate to the jury what segment of the population the profile was more likely to match. Dr. Eberhardt's testimony did for the jurors what the expert's testimony in Murray could notit explained the significance of the information and data they were given. She testified the DNA profile of the blood on Butler's sneaker matched that of Leslie Fleming. She explained that she then calculated a statistical frequency that could tell her how common or how rare that type of profile would be found in any given population. She concluded, [T]he DNA profile found on the sneaker, as well as the DNA profile from Leslie Fleming occurs approximately one in 3,000 in the African American population, approximately one in 112,800 individuals of the Caucasian, and approximately one in 538,000 in the Southeastern Hispanic population. This testimony quantitatively helped the jury and the trial court understand the importance of a DNA match. See Hayes v. State, 660 So.2d 257 (Fla.1995) (first case where this Court took judicial notice that DNA methodology conducted properly would satisfy the Frye test). Butler also contends Dr. Eberhardt's use of the product rule to determine population frequencies was error. Several Florida cases, as well as cases from other jurisdictions, have accepted use of the product rule. See Brim v. State, 695 So.2d at 272 (observing that the NRC adopted the ceiling principle amid speculation that product rule calculations did not account for population substructures, but later disavowed the ceiling principle and renewed its approval of product rule calculations); Clark v. State, 679 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ([P]roduct rule calculations are appropriate as a matter of scientific fact and law.) (citing National Research Council, The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence (prepublication copy 1996)); see also United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540 (6th Cir.1993); United States v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786 (2d Cir.1992). [6] Butler's contention is inaccurate in light of the case law that continues to uphold the validity of the product rule. This argument is without merit. Dr. Eberhardt was qualified to testify as an expert because her testimony was based on proven scientific principles.