Answer Brief of Appellee - Florida State University College of Law

35 1093, 1177). However, there is no scientific basis for the
leap from those situations to the amorphous, non-specific
“prediction of violence” context of this case. Even putting
aside the defects in the comparison of Hoskins’ PET scan to the
“normals,” there is no generally accepted scientific opinion
that there is a “murderer” profile that can be identified by a
PET scan. The Circuit Court erred when it held the PET scan
evidence admissible.
THE CIRCUIT COURT IMPROPERLY ALLOWED
HOSKINS’ WITNESSES TO BOLSTER THEIR TESTIMONY
The majority of the testimony offered by Hoskins at the
Frye hearing consisted of his various experts reading from
various professional journals and asserting that the opinions
contained in those articles (which reported the results of
various experiments) supported their opinions relative to this
case. All of this testimony came in over the State’s objection
that the testimony was hearsay. (SR182). The Circuit Court was
wrong when it overruled the State’s objection.
Despite the evident confusion over the applicability of §
90.706, Fla. Stat., to a Frye hearing, Florida law is settled
that a “learned treatise” is not admissible as substantive
cases. The PET scan has a role that is described as
“complementary,” but is never ranked as the “most appropriate”
procedure -- it is invariably the least appropriate. Appendix B.
there seems to be no “general acceptance” that the PET scan is
appropriately used in head trauma cases (which Hoskins claims to
have).
51