This is especially important in a criminal trial where the defendant is guaranteed certain constitutional rights, not the least of which is the due process right to present witnesses in one's behalf. Ramirez v. State, 651 So.2d 1164, 1168 (Fla. 1995) ( Ramirez II). Prior to the third trial, the court conducted a hearing wherein the State presented the testimony of six experts to support Hart's identification methodology.

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). As we explained in Ramirez v. State, 651 So.2d 1164, 1166–67 (Fla.1995), the admission into evidence of expert opinion testimony concerning a new or novel scientific principle is a four-step process. First, the trial judge must determine whether such expert testimony will assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue under section 90.702, Florida Statutes.

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923). As we explained in Ramirez v. State, 651 So. 2d 1164, 1166-67 (Fla. 1995), the admission into evidence of expert opinion testimony concerning a new or novel scientific principle is a four-step process. First, the trial judge must determine whether such expert testimony will assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue under section 90.702, Florida Statutes.

The general acceptance under the Frye test must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Ramirez v. State, 651 So.2d 1164, 1168 (Fla. 1995) (emphasis added). Recognizing the difficulty of an inquiry such as this one where cutting-edge science often becomes the dispositive factor in resolving critical questions of law and fact, we set out inRamirez a step-by-step analysis that a trial court must make before admitting into evidence the testimony of an expert witness concerning a new scientific principle.

What was challenged below, and what we believe needed to be Frye tested was, Dr. Sokol's application of staging studies. See Ramirez v. State, 651 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 1995) (holding under Frye the proponent must establish the general acceptance of both the underlying scientific principle and the testing procedure used to apply that principle to the facts of the case at hand); Cella v. United States, 998 F.2d 418, 425 (7th Cir. l993) ("the Frye standard requires that the methodology and reasoning used by an expert in reaching a conclusion be generally accepted within the relative scientific community"). Staging cancer consists of grouping together three characteristics of a patient's existent cancer (T, N, M), in order to help the patient's physician demarcate the spectrum of available future treatment options.

"The principle inquiry under the Frye test is whether the scientific theory or discovery from which an expert derives an opinion is reliable." Ramirez v. State, 651 So.2d 1164, 1167 (Fla. 1995). The DNA testing process consists of two distinct steps.

To be admissible in Florida courts, an expert's opinion relating to matters involving novel scientific evidence must be based on a scientific principle or discovery that is "sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." Frye, 293 F. at 1014; Hadden v. State, 690 So.2d 573, 576 (Fla. 1997); Ramirez v. State, 651 So.2d 1164, 1167 (Fla. 1995). The principal inquiry under the Frye test is whether the scientific theory or discovery from which an expert derives an opinion is reliable.

Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 702.4 (1997 Edition). Flanagan was followed by the court's decision in Ramirez v. State, 651 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 1995), wherein the court emphasized that the burden is on the proponent of the evidence to prove the general acceptance of both the underlying scientific principle and the testing procedures used to apply that principle to the facts of the case at hand . . . The general acceptance under the Frye test must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Therefore, in both Flanagan and Hadden we recognized that pure opinion is not subject to Frye, but emphasized that the underlying scientific principles are. Flanagan, 625 So.2d at 828; Hadden, 690 So.2d at 576, 580; see also Brim, 695 So.2d at 272 (recognizing that under Frye, "the burden is on the proponent of the evidence to prove the general acceptance of both the underlying scientific principle and the testing procedures used to apply that principle to the facts at hand") (quoting Ramirez v. State, 651 So.2d 1164, 1168 (Fla. 1995)). These cases dictate that where an expert's opinion is based on an underlying scientific principle, that underlying principle is subject to Frye.

"In utilizing the Frye test, the burden is on the proponent of the evidence to prove the general acceptance of both the underlying scientific principle and the testing procedures used to apply that principle to the facts of the case at hand." Ramirez v. State, 651 So.2d 1164, 1168 (Fla. 1995) (emphasis added). With regard to the testing procedures used, DNA test results are generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community, provided that the laboratory has followed accepted testing procedures that meet the Frye test to protect against false readings and contamination.