Opinion ID: 1890564
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Expert Testimony Under Frye

Text: To determine whether expert testimony is admissible under section 90.702, Florida Statutes (2001), Florida courts follow the test set out in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923): Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable states is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a wellrecognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. Id. at 1014 (emphasis added). This test requires that the scientific principles undergirding this evidence be found by the trial court to be generally accepted by the relevant members of its particular field. Hadden v. State, 690 So.2d 573, 576 (Fla. 1997). The proponent of the evidence bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the general acceptance of the underlying scientific principles and methodology. See Murray v. State, 692 So.2d 157, 161 (Fla.1997). The standard of review of a Frye issue is de novo. See Brim v. State, 695 So.2d 268, 275 (Fla.1997); Berry v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 709 So.2d 552, 557 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In Berry, we said, Our de novo review of the Frye issue in these cases includes an examination of three methods of proof: (1) expert testimony, (2) scientific and legal writings, and (3) judicial opinions. 709 So.2d at 557 (citing Flanagan v. State, 586 So.2d 1085, 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), approved, 625 So.2d 827 (Fla.1993)). Furthermore, the issue of general acceptance is to be made at the time of appeal, rather than at the time of trial. See Hadden, 690 So.2d at 579. The Castillos' experts testified: (1) that benomyl is a teratogen; and (2) as to the dosage level at which it becomes a teratogen. [3] We must consider whether the scientific principles upon which the Castillos' experts based their opinions are generally accepted in the scientific community. The Castillos' expert's methodology for reaching his opinion that benomyl is a human teratogen at 20 ppb, involved the following considerations: (1) animal studies, including DuPont's own rat studies, which showed that Benlate is teratogenic and that it specifically causes microphthalmia and anophthalmia; (2) in vitro tests performed by DuPont, Dr. Van Velzen, and Dr. Howard, which showed the levels at which Benlate can impair neurite growth and functioning and induce cell deatheither of which could impair or prevent development of the eyes; (3) clinical epidemiological studies are not available because Benlate is a toxic chemical and thus not suitable for human experiment; (4) geneticists had conducted every conceivable genetic test and could find no known genetic cause of John Castillo's microphthalmia; and (5) there was no evidence of any other environmental cause. DuPont and Pine Island attack the Castillos' expert alleging that (1) he failed to use epidemiological studies, (2) he erroneously relied upon differential diagnosis, (3) he failed to consider the fact that John Castillo did not have multiple malformations, (4) the in-vitro testing and rat gavage studies were inappropriate methods to determine the dosage at which benomyl becomes a human teratogen, and (5) the extrapolation of data was not an accepted scientific method. We will address each of these allegations.