Full opinion text
PER CURIAM. The State of Florida seeks review of an order entered in the circuit court on Michael Peter Fitzpatrick’s postconviction motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. In its order, the circuit court vacated Fitzpatrick’s conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death and granted Fitzpatrick a new trial. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. We affirm the circuit court’s order and grant Fitzpatrick a new trial. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A jury convicted Fitzpatrick of the first-degree murder and sexual battery of Laura Romines. Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So.2d 495, 503 (Fla.2005). For the murder, the jury recommended a sentence of death by a vote of 10-2. Id. The trial court sentenced Fitzpatrick to death on the murder conviction and thirty years’ imprisonment on the sexual battery conviction to be served concurrently. Id. On direct appeal, we affirmed Fitzpatrick’s murder conviction and sentence. Id. Many of the facts and conclusions surrounding the murder and alleged sexual battery developed during trial have been called into serious question during these postconviction proceedings. However, to fully address this motion we draw upon the facts as they were delineated by this Court on direct appeal: [0]n August 18, 1996, at approximately 3 a.m., several individuals found Ro-mines walking on the side of the road, nude and bloody with her throat slit. When questioned at the scene, and then again at the hospital, Romines gave conflicting responses with regard to who attacked her. At the scene, she separately advised an individual who found her, a paramedic, and the first deputy to arrive that “Steve” had attacked her and that he lived at Water’s Edge Apartments. [n.l] Romines also told the paramedic that “Steve” was a 30-year-old male. The paramedic testified that Ro-mines was in and out of consciousness and possibly did not understand the question when she stated “Steve.” Ro-mines also stated that she was stabbed at the location where she was found and that she arrived there in a vehicle. Ro-mines was airlifted to the hospital. At the hospital, detectives Jeff Bousquet and Peter Weekes asked Romines if “Steve” had attacked her and she shook her head no. [N.l.] “Steve” was later presumed to be Stephen Kirk, who became a suspect. At trial, the nature of Romines’ relationship with Kirk was revealed. Jeff Smedley, a corporal with the sheriffs office, testified that on August 17, 1996, he responded to a call from Water’s Edge Apartments. There, he was informed that Romines had been staying with Kirk and Barbara Simler, and was no longer welcome on the premises. Smedley discovered that Kirk met Romines at the motel where he worked as a security guard, and offered Romines a place to stay after she was beaten up by her boyfriend, Joe Galbert. The police eliminated Galbert as a suspect because he was in jail at the time of Romines’ stabbing. A significant amount of investigative evidence exculpated Kirk of Romines’ sexual battery and murder. The DNA profile developed from Romines’ vaginal swabs was not consistent with Kirk’s DNA profile; numerous witnesses, including coworkers and guests at the motel where Kirk was working as a security guard, testified regarding his whereabouts that night; and Kirk’s vehicle was processed for possible blood evidence but no results were procured. Rita Hall, an advanced registered nurse, who was accepted by the trial court as an expert in the field of the examination of sexual assault victims, conducted the SAVE (sexual assault victim examination) on Romines at the hospital. Hall testified that she found a bloody undergarment wrapped around Romines’ waist near her breasts, Ro-mines’ breasts were deep purple, there was a penetrating wound in the breast area that was either another stab wound or a bite mark, there was puffiness around her head, there was bruising on her arms, her legs were covered in scratches, and there was a cigarette burn on her leg. Hall also examined and swabbed Ro-mines’ vaginal and anal areas. Hall concluded that sexual activity occurred within a fairly close proximity of time, a maximum of an hour or two, from when Romines was found. Hall also concluded that Romines never had the undergarment on after the sexual activity, due to the absence of semen on the undergarment. Hall detected several areas in the vagina and anus that were either a very deep pink or red, indicating there was pressure from something penetrating the areas. In addition, Hall testified that her findings were consistent with forced sexual activity; however, she could not determine conclusively if the sexual activity was forced. Further, the evidence established that the DNA profile developed from Romines’ vaginal swabs was consistent with the DNA profile that was developed from Fitzpatrick’s blood sample. According to the medical examiner, the cause of death was hemorrhage and aspiration of blood due to incised wounds of the neck, penetrating the larynx and esophagus. The medical examiner could not indicate with any degree of precision the original length of the wound; however, the deepest penetration appeared to be one to one and a half inches. With regard to Fitzpatrick’s involvement with Romines, the evidence established that on August 17, 1996, Romines was dropped off at a 7-Eleven between 7:30 and 8 p.m. Fitzpatrick, who was delivering pizzas for Pro Pizza, saw Ro-mines at the 7-Eleven. In his police statement, Fitzpatrick stated that when he stopped at the 7-Eleven to get gas and cigarettes he saw Romines crying and asked her if she needed a ride to the Sunny Palms Motel. Fitzpatrick stated that he then dropped off Romines at the motel, and later returned to the motel to check on her, but never saw her again. The 7-Eleven surveillance tape from that night revealed that Romines entered the store. The tape also revealed Fitzpatrick at the store. Two State witnesses, Cindy Young and Jessica Kortepeter, testified that they witnessed a Pro Pizza delivery man arrive at the Sunny Palms Motel with Romines on the night of August 17 between 8:80 and 9 p.m. After Romines informed Kortepeter she was looking for a place to stay, Kortepeter recommended her friend Albert J. Howard. Kortepeter testified that Howard arrived at the Sunny Palms Motel, talked to Romines for about ten to fifteen minutes, and drove off with her at approximately 9 p.m. [n.2] Young and Kortep-eter’s testimony was consistent with Howard’s, who admitted that he went to the Sunny Palms Motel between 8:30 and 9 p.m. to talk to Romines, and talked to her for fifteen to twenty minutes before she decided to go with him to his house. [N.2.] This testimony was corroborated by Fitzpatrick’s Pro Pizza employers, Deborah Bradford and Eugene Degele, who testified that Fitzpatrick informed them that he had gone that night to a convenience store, picked up a young lady, and taken her to the Sunny Palms Motel. Degele testified that he personally saw Fitzpatrick’s Pro Pizza truck in the motel parking lot. At trial, evidence was presented that after the stabbing Degele questioned Fitzpatrick regarding whether the girl who was stabbed was the same girl Fitzpatrick had picked up at the 7-Eleven, and Fitzpatrick denied it was she. However, the next day Fitzpatrick admitted to Degele that the girl he picked up was the one who was found stabbed later that night. The evidence at trial established that Fitzpatrick clocked out with his time card at 11:45 p.m. on August 17, and took a pizza with him. Sally Goodwin, Kortepeter’s mother who was visiting Kortepeter at the Sunny Palms Motel, testified that she saw a Pro Pizza truck at the motel that night, but could not remember what time she observed the truck at the motel. Goodwin also testified that she left the motel and drove to Howard’s house, where she recalled seeing the same Pro Pizza truck that left the motel. Howard confirmed that a pizza delivery man, whom he identified in court as Fitzpatrick, arrived at his house with a pizza, informed him the pizza was free, and asked him if Ro-mines was there. Howard testified that it was approximately midnight when Ro-mines left with the pizza delivery man “arm in arm.” Howard’s testimony was consistent with that of Melanie Yarborough, who was at Howard’s house on August 17, 1996. At some point that night, Yarbor-ough observed a Pro Pizza delivery man arrive at Howard’s house. Yarborough recalled either helping place Romines’ bags in the pizza delivery man’s truck or handing the bags to Romines, who then placed the bags in the truck. Yarbor-ough testified that she saw Romines leave Howard’s house with the pizza delivery man. At trial, evidence was presented that Fitzpatrick was seen carrying a knife before the stabbing occurred, but not afterward. Specifically, Fitzpatrick’s Pro Pizza employers, Bradford and De-gele, testified that during the time frame that Fitzpatrick worked for Pro Pizza he carried a knife on his person, but that after the stabbing they never saw that knife again. Degele, however, did not remember the last time he saw Fitzpatrick with the knife before the stabbing. According to Degele, he confronted Fitzpatrick regarding not carrying the knife after the stabbing, and Fitzpatrick indicated it would not be very smart to carry a knife around because the police were conducting a murder investigation. During the investigation, Fitzpatrick made several statements to Detective Jeffrey Bousquet denying involvement in the crime. Fitzpatrick admitted that he picked Romines up at the 7-Eleven and dropped her off at the Sunny Palms Motel. Fitzpatrick denied ever seeing Romines again. Diane Fairbanks, who resided with Fitzpatrick at the time of the murder, and was still Fitzpatrick’s girlfriend at the time of trial, testified that Fitzpatrick was home between 12:30 and 1 a.m. on August 18, 1996, roughly the same time other witnesses testified to seeing Fitzpatrick with Romines leaving Howard’s house, [n.3] Fitzpatrick also denied having sexual intercourse with Romines, until the detective confronted him with the DNA results. At that point, Fitzpatrick admitted that he had sexual contact with Romines on August 17, 1996, between 9:30 a.m. and noon at the Water’s Edge Apartments. Fitzpatrick stated that he saw Romines at the dumpster at Water’s Edge and then they went to his house, had sexual intercourse on the couch, and he paid her twenty-five dollars. Bousquet also inquired whether Fitzpatrick would submit a blood sample to the police, which Fitzpatrick ultimately did. Evidence presented revealed that Fitzpatrick asked Dawn Moore, his sister who was a nurse, for a couple of vials of blood, Moore informed Fitzpatrick that she could not obtain blood samples for him. [N.3.] Fairbanks also testified that she and Fitzpatrick went to bed together that night. Id. at 503-06. As a basis for imposing a sentence of death for the murder of Romines, the trial court found four statutory aggravating circumstances: (1) Fitzpatrick was under sentence of imprisonment or conditional/control release when the murder in this case was committed (great weight); (2) Fitzpatrick had previously been convicted of a violent felony (moderate weight); (3) Fitzpatrick committed the murder during the commission of an involuntary sexual battery on the victim (little weight); and (4) the murder in this case was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (great weight). Id. at 526. The trial court found the existence of two statutory mitigating circumstances: (1) the victim was a participant in Fitzpatrick’s conduct or consented to the act (little weight); and (2) other factors in Fitzpatrick’s background that would mitigate against the imposition of the death penalty. Under the statutory catchall provision the trial court accepted, considered, and weighed that Fitzpatrick: (1) had a good family background (great weight); (2) was doing well at his job when the murder in this case was committed (moderate weight); (3) had a long history of alcoholism and drug addiction and was apparently making strides to combat it (moderate weight); (4) served in the military but was given a general discharge under honorable conditions (no weight because of the reason for his general discharge); (5) had other mental and substance abuse problems which included an attempted suicide in 1995, a 1995 diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and situational depression, and alcohol and marijuana dependency (moderate weight); and (6) had no relationship with his natural child but established a caring, parental relationship with the children of his girlfriend (great weight). Id. Finally, as nonstatutory mitigation, the trial court found that Fitzpatrick: (1) had shown considerable remorse for the death of the victim and appeared genuinely sorry for her death (moderate weight); (2) had long-term relationships with at least three women (great weight); and (3) was generally a friendly, warm, considerate person and had loyal friends and family (great weight). The trial court also found that the victim was a troubled young woman, but there was no evidence that she enticed Fitzpatrick into the acts he committed (no weight). Id. at 527. We affirmed the convictions and sentence of death on direct appeal. Id. However, we vacated Fitzpatrick’s sexual battery sentence and remanded the noncapital offense for resentencing because the State failed to prepare a guidelines scoresheet in violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(1). Id. at 525-26. Postconviction Proceedings On June 30, 2006, Fitzpatrick filed an initial eight-claim Motion to Vacate Judgment of Conviction and Sentence. After a Huff hearing, the postconviction court issued an order that granted an evidentiary hearing for some of Fitzpatrick’s claims, denied others without an evidentiary hearing, reserved ruling on others, and granted leave to amend the claims remaining. On March 5, 2007, Fitzpatrick filed a seven-claim Amended Motion to Vacate Judgment of Conviction and Sentence. The claims contained within that motion included allegations that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of Strickland during both the guilt and penalty phases of Fitzpatrick’s capital trial. Fitzpatrick asserted that Florida’s capital sentencing statute as applied is unconstitutional and that the State will, by executing him, violate his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment because he may be incompetent at the time of execution. He further argued that the jury instructions unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof to Fitzpatrick to prove that the death penalty was an inappropriate punishment and that execution by lethal injection is unconstitutional. Finally, Fitzpatrick alleged that the State could not execute him because he suffered from a major mental illness at the time of the offense. The subclaims that alleged trial counsel was ineffective during the guilt phase included counsel’s failure to: (a) request the appointment of a second attorney to assist with the representation of Fitzpatrick; (b) call the court’s attention to a sleeping juror; (c) move for costs to retain a forensic investigator, and officially request authorization to excavate A. J. Howard’s real property before trial; (d) challenge and preserve for appeal the trial court’s erroneous response to three jury questions; (e) conduct a reasonable investigation and consult with experts in serology and DNA testing to refute the testimony of Rita Hall and Mary Ruth McMahan; (f) realize that the fingernail scrapings tested by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) came from the medical examiner’s office and not the SAVE kit, and have the nail scrapings from the SAVE kit tested; (g) investigate several witnesses and their relationship to Fitzpatrick’s case; (h) retain a forensic expert to review the hospital reports and forensic evidence concerning the quantity of discharge found within Ro-mines’ vagina and anus, the number of motile sperm found during the SAVE exam, and the apparent absence of semen on Romines’ underwear; and (i) retain a forensic pathologist to testify to the effect the medication had on Romines’ ability to understand and respond to Detective Bousquet’s questions at the hospital. The subclaims that alleged trial counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase included counsel’s failure to: (a) investigate and accurately advise Fitzpatrick of available mitigation prior to Fitzpatrick’s decision not to present mitigating evidence; (b) request funds to have a mental health evaluation performed; (c) file and argue a motion to disqualify the trial judge; and (d) retain a forensic pathologist to testify with regard to the effects of ethanol in Romines’ system in relation to her ability to experience fear, sense danger, or feel pain. Fitzpatrick also claimed cumulative error during both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. The postconviction court granted Fitzpatrick an evidentiary hearing with respect to claims 1(a), 1(g), l(k), 2(a), 2(b), and 2(d). The court reserved ruling on claims 1(e), 1(f), l(j), and the allegation of cumulative error, and denied the remaining claims without an evidentiary hearing. Thus, Fitzpatrick’s evidentiary hearing focused exclusively on claims that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. The evidentiary hearing occurred over the course of five days between October and December 2010. In addition to the testimony of trial counsel, the defense presented eight other witnesses. To support Fitzpatrick’s guilt phase ineffectiveness claims the defense presented: (1) Dr. Elizabeth Johnson, a forensic biology consultant with a specialty in DNA; (2) Angela Williamson and Andrea Borchardt-Gard-ner from BODE Laboratories; (3) Dr. Daniel Spitz, a forensic pathologist and medical examiner; and (4) Robyn Rags-dale, a crime laboratory analyst supervisor with FDLE. To support Fitzpatrick’s allegations of penalty phase ineffectiveness, the defense presented three witnesses: (1) Mary Lewis, Fitzpatrick’s mother; (2) Dr. Robert Smith, a clinical psychologist and certified addiction specialist; and (3) Margaret Angel, the trial attorney’s investigator. The State presented two witnesses: (1) Ragsdale; and (2) Hall, an advanced registered nurse practitioner who testified as an expert during Fitzpatrick’s earlier criminal trial. At the close of the eviden-tiary hearing, the court found that Fitzpatrick had established both the deficiency and prejudice prongs of Strickland for claims 1(e), 1(f), l(j), l(k), 2(a), and 2(b), and had established cumulative error. As a result, the court vacated Fitzpatrick’s judgment of guilt of first-degree murder as well as his sentence of death and ordered a new trial. This appeal by the State follows. ANALYSIS Strickland Standard of Review The State’s first four claims on appeal challenge the postconviction court’s determination that counsel was ineffective during the guilt phase of Fitzpatrick’s trial. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are evaluated in accordance with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Strickland. We recently described what a defendant must establish to succeed on a claim that trial counsel was ineffective: [T]he test when assessing the actions of trial counsel is not how, in hindsight, present counsel would have proceeded. See Cherry v. State, 659 So.2d 1069, 1073 (Fla.1995). On the contrary, a claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel must satisfy two criteria. First, counsel’s performance must be shown to be deficient. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Deficient performance in this context means that counsel’s performance fell below the standard guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Id. When examining counsel’s performance, an objective standard of reasonableness applies, id. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052 and great deference is given to counsel’s performance. Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The defendant bears the burden to “overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’ ” Id. (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955)). This Court has made clear that “[strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.” See Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1048 (Fla.2000). There is a strong presumption that trial counsel’s performance was not ineffective. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 669, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Second, the deficient performance must have prejudiced the defendant, ultimately depriving the defendant of a fair trial with a reliable result. [Id. at] 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. A defendant must do more than speculate that an error affected the outcome. Id. at 693, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Prejudice is met only if there is a reasonable probability that “but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Both deficient performance and prejudice must be shown. Id. Bradley v. State, 33 So.3d 664, 671-72 (Fla.2010) (parallel citations omitted). Because Strickland requires that a defendant establish both deficiency and prejudice, an appellate court evaluating a claim of ineffectiveness is not required to issue a specific ruling on one component of the test when it is evident that the other component is not satisfied. See Mungin v. State, 932 So.2d 986, 996 (Fla.2006). Furthermore, this Court examines ineffective assistance claims under a mixed standard of review because the performance and prejudice prongs of Strickland present mixed questions of both law and fact. Bradley, 33 So.3d at 672. Post-conviction courts hold a superior vantage point with respect to questions of fact, evidentiary weight, and observations of the demeanor and credibility of witnesses. See Cox v. State, 966 So.2d 337, 357-58 (Fla.2007). As a result, this Court defers to the postconviction court’s factual findings so long as those findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Bradley, 33 So.3d at 672. However, we review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions de novo. Id. Fitzpatrick’s Guilt Phase Claims The postconviction court found defense trial counsel to be deficient during the guilt phase of Fitzpatrick’s trial based upon his failure to: (1) consult an expert in serology or DNA to refute the timing of Fitzpatrick’s sexual encounter with Ro-mines; (2) consult or hire a forensic pathologist to address (a) the apparent absence of semen on Romines’ underwear; (b) the quantity of discharge found in Ro-mines’ vagina and anus during the SAVE examination; and (c) the impact of sperm motility and the number of “motile” sperm discovered in Romines’ vagina upon the timing of the sexual encounter between Romines and Fitzpatrick; (3) retain a forensic pathologist or medical professional to testify concerning the effects of medication given to Romines at the hospital; and (4) realize which fingernail evidence was relevant and to seek testing on the fingernail scrapings taken from Romines during the SAVE examination. Although the postconviction court found an independent deficiency for each of the four guilt phase claims, the court determined that the first three claims were “intertwined in weighing the impact upon the possible outcome of the case.” The postconviction court also found that Fitzpatrick suffered prejudice with regard to the fingernail evidence. Sperm Motility, Quantity of Discharge, and the Presence of Semen The State challenges the postconviction court’s finding that trial counsel was ineffective during the guilt phase of Fitzpatrick’s trial for failing to consult an expert in serology or DNA and a forensic pathologist. These claims represented the bulk of Fitzpatrick’s postconviction challenges related to the timing of Fitz-Patrick’s sexual encounter with Romines and the postconviction court’s conclusions with regard to these claims must be considered together. Counsel’s failure to conduct a reasonable investigation into sperm motility, the status of sperm on Romines’ underwear, and the fluid inside Romines are all directly related to counsel’s failure during trial to adequately challenge the State’s time frame on this dispositive issue. We conclude that with respect to these issues the trial court correctly found that trial counsel was deficient, and further that this deficiency prejudicially impacted the outcome of Fitzpatrick’s trial. Timing and Motility Before trial, Fitzpatrick had initially denied having sexual intercourse with Ro-mines until he was directly confronted with DNA evidence demonstrating that his semen was found inside Romines. Fitzpatrick, 900 So.2d at 507. At that point, he admitted to having intercourse with Romines between the hours of 9 a.m. and noon on the day before Romines was discovered. Id. During trial, the State presented Mary McMahan, a senior crime lab analyst in the serology/DNA division of FDLE, to testify about the sperm found inside Romines. McMahan testified that Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing revealed that the DNA from the sperm matched Fitzpatrick’s known DNA profile to the exclusion of 612 million Caucasians, 5.9 billion African Americans, and 1.3 billion Hispanics. To determine the time frame during which the sperm were deposited inside Romines, McMahan testified that she microscopically examined the sperm and found “many to some” heads with tails still intact. On the topic of timing, the prosecutor asked McMahan: PROSECUTOR: Now, this sperm itself — -when we talk about heads and tails, what are we talking about? McMAHAN: The sperm is, of course, microscopic, and it’s a small organism or cell, really, where the DNA is contained within the head of the sperm. But the sperm also had a tail, which makes it motile, and that tail is much more fragile than the head is. PROSECUTOR: Okay. And you say “makes it motile.” What do you mean? McMAHAN: It can move. PROSECUTOR: Move, swim? McMAHAN: Right. PROSECUTOR: Okay. So you have what I refer to as motile and nonmotile sperm, correct? McMAHAN: Correct. PROSECUTOR: And the nonmotile sperm would he the head by itself? McMAHAN: Yes. PROSECUTOR: — that no longer possesses the capability of moving? McMAHAN: Right. PROSECUTOR: Based upon your observations of the sperm, motile and non-motile, in the vaginal swabs and on the slide, can you render an opinion as to how long prior to their removal from the vagina they had been deposited? McMAHAN: Again, with the variance of time there, I would say the longest they could have been there would be, like, 15 hours [from when the SAVE kit was taken]. PROSECUTOR: At the very longest? McMAHAN: Yes. (Emphasis supplied.) During the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Johnson, a forensic biology consultant with a specialty in DNA, reviewed the FDLE reports and the trial testimony of State forensic witnesses Hall, the nurse who conducted the SAVE examination, and McMa-han. Dr. Johnson testified that the prosecutor and McMahan made a “foundational flaw” by improperly interchanging the terms “motile sperm” with “sperm with a tail.” Dr. Johnson explained that motile sperm are sperm that have a tail and are capable of moving and swimming. Thus, motile sperm are a subset of sperm with tails. Motility is measured by placing the sperm on a wet mount slide to provide a liquid medium for the sperm to move. No wet mount slides were made in this case. Rather, Dr. Johnson testified that the slides made were actually air dry, which eliminated the possibility of evaluating the sperm samples for motility. Dr. Johnson further testified that sperm may lose motility but maintain its tail. In some cases, sperm that have existed for many years can be found on swabs in fabric. This fact, she explained, is why it was very inappropriate for McMahan to interchange the references to motile sperm with sperms with tails. Fitzpatrick’s postconviction counsel also presented Dr. Daniel Spitz, a forensic pathologist and the chief medical examiner for Macomb and St. Clair Counties in Michigan. As chief medical examiner, Dr. Spitz oversees forensic nurse examiners to ensure proper evidence collection, and he is actively involved in a yearly seminar that teaches evidence collection to medical examiners, physicians, and forensic nurse examiners. He testified that the evidence collected yielded sperm, which showed both intact sperm — that is sperm that has a head with an intact tail — as well as sperm heads by themselves. Most of the sperm identified were sperm heads alone with a smaller amount of sperm heads with intact tails, which indicate that there was a period of many hours between the deposition of that material and the collection of the evidence. Sperm motility is lost within two to three hours after intercourse, and motile sperm are generally not present after sixteen hours. In contrast, Dr. Spitz noted that fifteen to eighteen hours is the generally accepted time frame between which the tails begin to separate from the heads. Here, the condition of the sperm indicated that the sexual encounter between Fitzpatrick and Romines occurred approximately twenty-four hours from the time of evidence collection, which was at approximately eight o’clock on the morning after Romines was attacked. Dr. Johnson concluded that McMahan’s confusion between “motile sperm” and “sperms with tails” directly contributed to McMa-han’s conclusion concerning the fifteen-hour time frame she placed on the sexual encounter between Romines and Fitzpatrick. As a result, she disagreed with McMahan’s conclusion, explaining that scientific research demonstrates that the sperm in Romines could have been deposited from as early as twenty to forty-eight hours before the SAVE examination. Similarly, Dr. Spitz noted that McMahan’s fifteen-hour maximum time frame estimate was inaccurate because McMahan failed to take into consideration the more advanced degeneration of the sperm. Instead, Dr. Spitz testified that the evidence supported the conclusion that fifteen hours could be a minimum and not a maximum amount of time for intercourse between Fitzpatrick and Romines to have occurred. Quantity of Discharge Nurse practitioner Hall conducted a SAVE exam on Romines the morning she was discovered. On direct appeal, we summarized Hall’s testimony relating to this issue as follows: Hall also examined and swabbed Ro-mines’ vaginal and anal areas. Hall concluded that sexual activity occurred within a fairly close proximity of time, a maximum of an hour or two, from when Romines was found. Fitzpatrick, 900 So.2d at 504. Hall’s conclusion that intercourse between Romines and Fitzpatrick occurred within a couple hours of the attack was based primarily on her observations of fluid found inside Ro-mines. The colloquy between the prosecutor and Hall during trial with respect to this evidence reveals: PROSECUTOR: Can you quantify the amount of the white fluid that you observed within the vaginal vault? HALL: I have a note here that there was a white fluid.... I would expect that if a person has been sexually assaulted, and they walked around for any length of time, you lose evidence right away. The anal area, within an hour you have lost all the evidence, and within a couple of hours in the vaginal area. And in this particular instance, I saw fluid in both places. So it was my suspicion that this was a seminal fluid.[] PROSECUTOR: And ... assuming, rather, that it was a seminal fluid, the fact of the presence of a seminal fluid in the area of the anus was of greater importance to you then, was it not? HALL: Yes. Because you just wouldn’t expect to find that. PROSECUTOR: You found, I believe, in two locations, a brown fluid ... could you explain to the jury what it is you found, and where you found it? HALL: As I was collecting the swabs of the fluid that was there, there was a brownish color to some of the fluids.... So I was assuming that it could have been the fluid like at the end of her period, a brownish discharge. But then when I did the anal area, I found the same substance that was there. So in trying to sort out what happened, what I felt it could have been is that maybe a penis went into the vagina and then into the anus, and that it was the tail end of her period where it would be menstrual flow, or it could have been trauma to the tissue, which also would have caused a brownish discharge.[] Hall further testified that, based on the fluid found inside Romines: (1) sexual intercourse must have occurred within an hour or two of her attack because Hall “expected” that if a “person has been sexually assaulted, and they walk around for any length of time you lose evidence right away”; and (2) “maybe” a penis went into Romines’ anus and vagina because the same brownish fluid was present in both areas. Effectively unrebutted, we accepted Hall’s statements as true, stating in our opinion on direct appeal that the “Evidence presented at trial indicated that the amount of seminal fluid containing Fitzpatrick’s DNA found in the victim confirmed that sexual intercourse took place only one to two hours before she was found.” Fitzpatrick, 900 So.2d at 509 (emphasis supplied). During the evidentiary hearing, both defense experts independently developed nearly identical conclusions with respect to Hall’s ability to reconstruct the timing and the circumstances of the sexual encounter between Romines and Fitzpatrick based on Hall’s evaluation of the amount of fluid found in Romines. Dr. Spitz testified that Hall’s determination that there was “a lot” of fluid was both a misevaluation of the evidence and not a scientific statement. He further testified that Hall improperly used the quantity of fluid to conclude that the sexual contact between Fitzpatrick and Romines was nonconsensual because the visual inspection of the quantity of a fluid provides insufficient information about sexual contact. Both experts indicated that the composition of a fluid must be determined by testing before a conclusion can be made with respect to whether the fluid discovered is indicative of sexual contact. Further, with regard to Hall’s testimony that intercourse must have occurred within a couple of hours because there was still a substantial amount of fluid inside Romines, Dr. Johnson noted that “[Hall] has, in other cases, collected fluids where she’s observed fluid and it turned out not to be semen. And that fluid, obviously, wasn’t removed ... by the activities the woman was engaged in.” Absence of Semen on Romines’ Underwear During trial, McMahan testified that she conducted both an acid phosphate test and microscopic sperm searches on Romines’ underwear to locate semen. Both tests produced negative results and McMahan therefore concluded that there was no indication of semen being present in Romines’ underwear. This conclusion was not affected by the presence of blood on Ro-mines’ underwear, as McMahan testified that the blood would have not completely removed the semen. Hall also testified during trial that there would have been seminal fluid on the underwear if Romines “had sex with someone, put on the panties, and then gone about her way.” Hall claimed that the absence of semen on Ro-mines’ underwear indicated that “whoever had sex with [Romines], it had to be a fairly close proximity in time, like an hour or two at the max, and that she never had the panties on afterwards.” During the postconviction proceedings, the circuit court ordered BODE Laboratories to conduct independent testing on Ro-mines’ underwear. Dr. Angela Williamson, a forensic biology and DNA analyst who is employed as the director of forensic casework at BODE Laboratories, testified during the evidentiary hearing that BODE conducted a microscopic sperm search by dividing the underwear into an eleven-region grid. Within those eleven regions over 100 sperm heads were discovered, with sperm present in nine of the eleven regions. The DNA contained within the discovered sperm was later confirmed by a DNA analyst at BODE to be a single profile that matched the known DNA profile of Fitzpatrick to the exclusion of 1.8 quintillion Caucasians, 25 quintillion African Americans, and 150 quadrillion Hispanics in the United States. Dr. Johnson established that blood on Romines’ underwear should not have affected FDLE’s ability to detect sperm. She further testified that if counsel had contacted her before trial with the FDLE results of Romines’ underwear, she would have advised him to hire an expert to perform independent laboratory testing because it is common for labs to miss sperm that is later discovered by a second lab’s testing. Dr. Johnson further testified that she was not sure how FDLE conducted the sperm search because BODE’s reports indicated that there were no cuttings on the underwear when they received them. She noted that sperm searches involve careful examination, and FDLE’s inability to discover the sperm indicates that it may have followed the wrong procedure or failed to take the necessary time required to find the sperm. Strickland Analysis with Regard to Sperm Motility, Quantity of Discharge, and the Presence of Semen Deficiency Fitzpatrick’s trial counsel represented him for four years before trial. During those four years, counsel had a professional obligation to investigate any potential impeaching or exculpatory evidence that may have assisted Fitzpatrick’s defense. See Bell v. State, 965 So.2d 48, 62 (Fla.2007). “One of the primary duties defense counsel owes to his client is the duty to prepare himself adequately prior to trial. ‘Pretrial preparation, principally because it provides a basis upon which most of the defense case must rest, is, perhaps the most critical stage of a lawyer’s preparation.’ ” Magill v. Dugger, 824 F.2d 879, 886 (11th Cir.1987) (quoting House v. Balkcom, 725 F.2d 608, 618 (11th Cir.1984)). Even before Strickland became the measuring stick for counsel’s effectiveness, courts across the country emphasized that an essential prerequisite to counsel’s presentation of an intelligent and knowledgeable defense is the requirement that counsel consult, investigate, and prepare for trial. Harris v. U.S., 441 A.2d 268, 272 (D.C.1982); see also Caraway v. Beto, 421 F.2d 636, 637-38 (5th Cir.1970) (“Our adversary system is designed to serve the ends of justice; it cannot do that unless [defense] counsel presents an intelligent and knowledgeable defense. Such a defense requires investigation and preparation.”) Although “the duty to investigate does not force defense lawyers to scour the globe on the off chance something will turn up,” Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 383, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005), postconviction evidence demonstrates that counsel’s preparation and performance were constitutionally inadequate, and his decisions before and during trial were not tactical or reflective of a reasonable trial strategy. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, we conclude that counsel’s investigation here fell far short of the norms of professional conduct required by Strickland and hold that counsel failed to provide Fitzpatrick with constitutionally adequate representation. The record repeatedly demonstrates that counsel did not adequately prepare himself to present an intelligent or knowledgeable defense with respect to the most important issue of Fitzpatrick’s trial: the timing of the alleged sexual encounter between Fitzpatrick and Romines. During trial, the State contended the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence was that Fitzpatrick raped Romines, slit her throat, and left her to die on the side of the road. Counsel knew that the State intended to support this time line by highlighting its three scientific arguments: (1) the condition of Fitzpatrick’s sperm in the victim’s vagina indicated that the sexual encounter between Romines and Fitzpatrick occurred near the time she was attacked; (2) the lack of semen found on Romines’ underwear indicated that Ro-mines never wore her underwear after sexual intercourse with Fitzpatrick; and (8) the large amount of fluid inside Ro-mines indicated that the sexual encounter occurred near the time she was found. Based upon this evidence, the State argued during trial that Fitzpatrick’s version of the events was scientifically impossible. Despite the scientific evidence that would implicate his client if not refuted, counsel failed to retain any forensic or medical experts. In fact, counsel filed his first request for a forensic expert after trial and only before the Spencer hearing, which occurred fifty-three months after counsel was appointed to represent Fitzpatrick. During the fifty-three months that preceded counsel’s first concerted effort to hire a forensic expert, Fitzpatrick had been convicted of first-degree murder, and a jury had recommended that he be sentenced to death. During the postcon-viction evidentiary hearing, counsel testified that he vaguely recalled consulting with Dr. Feegle, a medical examiner, for thirty minutes before trial to discuss the forensic aspects of Fitzpatrick’s case. This one tlmiy-minute conversation with Dr. Feegle was the only conversation counsel could remember and represented the entirety of his consultations with forensic experts during the forty-seven months counsel represented Fitzpatrick before trial. Counsel explained that after his thirty-minute undocumented conversation with Dr. Feegle, he declined to hire a forensic expert for trial because Dr. Feegle explained to him that “gravity” was a major problem for the defense, and that he would end up agreeing with the State’s analysis that it was likely that the intercourse had happened a short period of time before Romines was found. With every effort to view the facts as counsel would have at the time, we cannot conclude that this single undocumented thirty-minute conversation with Dr. Feegle concerning the highly technical, and indisputably dispositive, scientific aspects of Fitzpatrick’s trial constituted a reasonable investigation into the case against Fitzpatrick. The case against Fitzpatrick had significant weaknesses, yet counsel’s evi-dentiary hearing testimony and his performance during trial demonstrate that he was not sufficiently prepared to recognize or understand the science involved or those weaknesses. By failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into these issues, counsel inhibited his ability to know or discover whether the State’s experts made scientifically correct statements, or whether Romines’ underwear contained Fitzpatrick’s semen. If counsel had consulted a qualified expert, he would have been able to provide evidence to refute the State’s case through testimony indicating that the correct science supports the conclusion that Fitzpatrick’s sperm may have been deposited up to twenty-four hours before the SAVE exam. Competent, substantial evidence further supports the postconviction court’s finding that counsel’s trial performance with respect to Hall and McMa-han was conducted without any evident preparation, and without objection to inadmissible and inaccurate assertions by the prosecutor. State witnesses confused scientific terms, and made statements during trial that lacked a scientific basis. Despite these problems, counsel made no effort to challenge the State’s experts or the physical evidence against Fitzpatrick. Counsel did not object once during the testimony of Hall and McMahan despite the problems highlighted above, nor was he able to adequately challenge the mistakes in their testimony on cross-examination. Counsel’s unpreparedness was further demonstrated during counsel’s evidentiary hearing testimony which indicated that at the time of Fitzpatrick’s trial, he did not understand th'e difference between motile and intact sperm. This fact alone exemplifies the objective unreasonableness of his performance. Had counsel recognized and understood these differences he could have conveyed that McMahan’s failure to distinguish between motile and nonmotile sperm directly impacted her ability to provide an accurate estimate of the timing of the sexual encounter with Fitzpatrick. Counsel also would have been able to convey to the jury that Fitzpatrick’s version of the events, as well as his fervent assertions of innocence, were not as farfetched as the State attempted to portray the facts. The State’s experts testified during trial that Romines’ underwear exhibited no signs of Fitzpatrick’s semen, which strongly supported the State’s contention that intercourse between Romines and Fitzpatrick was nonconsensual and occurred shortly before she was discovered. However, postconviction testimony and testing revealed the exact opposite; that over 100 of Fitzpatrick’s sperm were discovered on Romines’ underwear. Postcon-viction testimony also established that McMahan’s report was unclear as to how she conducted a sperm search, and that if FDLE had tested properly it would have likely discovered Fitzpatrick’s sperm in Romines’ underwear. During the eviden-tiary hearing, trial counsel testified that he did not retest the underwear because he was “under the impression” that retesting would produce the same results. Decisions rendered by counsel after a less than complete investigation are only reasonable to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. 2052. If counsel had retested the underwear, he would have learned that either: (1) no semen was found; (2) Fitzpatrick’s semen was found; or (3) another person’s semen was found. Thus, retesting would have either produced no new harmful evidence or dramatically benefit-ted Fitzpatrick’s case because finding Fitzpatrick’s semen — or the semen of another person — in Romines’ underwear would have supported Fitzpatrick’s claim that he had consensual sex with Romines earlier in the day. Despite these facts, the record demonstrates that counsel failed to meaningfully consult an expert or conduct anything more than a cursory investigation into the benefits and potential risks of retesting Romines’ underwear. Consequently, we conclude that counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional judgment when he approached this critical issue based upon only an “impression” that semen would not be found, and without consulting an expert about the possibility that FDLE’s testing could have missed semen. See Williams v. Thaler, 684 F.3d 597, 604 (5th Cir.2012) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 866, 184 L.Ed.2d 679 (2013) (holding that defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness when counsel failed to “obtain any independent ballistics or forensics experts, and was therefore unable to offer any meaningful challenge to the findings and conclusions of the state’s experts, many of which proved to be incorrect”). The State contends that Fitzpatrick cannot establish deficient performance in light of counsel’s independent investigation and contemporaneous strategic decisions. The record does not support this contention because counsel’s independent investigation was ill conceived, improperly executed, and added nothing to Fitzpatrick’s defense. Counsel testified that he conducted his own forensic investigation at the University of South Florida library. He found an article from the Metropolitan Police Forensic Academy in London, which would have supported an extended timeline for the sexual encounter between Fitzpatrick and Romines. However, instead of presenting scientific studies through his own expert, counsel attempted to introduce the study during his cross-examination of McMahan. This attempt was prevented by the prosecution’s objection, which was sustained by the trial court. While it is counsel’s responsibility to educate themselves about the aspects of a case they do not understand, gaining personal knowledge of a subject does not end counsel’s obligation to his or her client. Counsel must apply the knowledge gained in a way that provides his or her client with evidence and constitutionally adequate legal representation. Here, even if we were to assume that counsel spent hours independently researching the scientific aspects of Fitzpatrick’s case, he did not utilize this scientific knowledge in a way that meaningfully benefitted Fitzpatrick during his trial. In sum, counsel did not adequately prepare himself to either present the necessary evidence in support of Fitzpatrick’s defense through the testimony of experts, or challenge the State’s forensic evidence. He did not uncover available exculpatory evidence because he did not make a sufficient effort to understand the forensic details of the physical evidence that purportedly supported Fitzpatrick’s guilt. Finally, he lacked the requisite knowledge to effectively cross-examine the State’s experts on their scientifically inaccurate testimony. For these reasons, we hold that counsel was deficient. Prejudice The postconviction court found that counsel’s errors on this issue prejudiced Fitzpatrick because they: [P]ermitted the development by the State of an inaccurate timeline of when the defendant may have had sex with the victim and when she was stabbed and found wandering the streets. The reasonableness and likelihood of a different result is all the more evident upon an examination of the reliance by the Supreme Court on the limited, virtually uncontroverted evidence during the guilt phase. Contrasted with the evidence introduced during the 3.851, it would have been reasonably expected to persuade a jury (and the Supreme Court) that the evidence did not support the murder verdict. (Footnote omitted.) The State, by its own admission, has repeatedly characterized the strongest evidence of Fitzpatrick’s guilt as: (1) the discovery of Fitzpatrick’s sperm in Ro-mines; (2) the lack of Fitzpatrick’s sperm on Romines’ underwear; and (3) the expert testimony that scientifically linked Fitzpatrick’s sexual encounter to a timeline consistent with the State’s position — that Fitzpatrick raped Romines, slit her throat, and then dumped her on the side of the road shortly before she was found — and inconsistent with the alternative consensual sex timeline presented by Fitzpatrick. In fact, the State directly told the jury that this evidence was critical to securing a conviction during closing argument: All right. Let’s go at it this way. Let’s forget Steve Kirk. Let’s forget A.J. Howard, Melanie Yarborough, Cindy Young, Jeff Bousquet, Stacey Morrison and Arnold. Everybody but three folks and one piece of evidence. Let’s forget the statements made by Fitzpatrick. The identifications made by the people in this courtroom. By Cindy Martin — or Cindy Young, who could or could not identify him, by A.J. [Howard], by Melanie, by Diane Fairbanks. Forget it all. You have the right to believe or disbelieve any witness you want to. But I would suggest to you that the testimony of Lee Miller, the medical examiner, Dr. McMahan, and Rita Hall have not been damaged. Dr. McMahan says this is not an exact science. I cannot tell you specifically. I can tell you that the literature in my experience to date ... indicates that you will find live, motile sperm up to fifteen hours after it’s been deposited. Whoever, therefore, according to Dr. McMahan, had sex with this lady, had sex with her sometime fifteen hours preceding 8:00 a.m. on the morning of the 18th. Rita Hall, based upon my examination of Laura Romines and the amount of semen that I saw, not only in the vaginal cavity, but in the anus, I’m telling you that no more than an hour. At most, two. Okay. Lee Miller, doctor. Forensic Pathologist. The wounds that were inflicted upon Laura Romines, these incised wounds of her throat, were inflicted a very short period of time before she was discovered. Very short. Otherwise, she would have bled out. Dr. McMahan says, notwithstanding the cross examination, there is no semen in those panties. There was none revealed by the Woods Lamp. There was none revealed by the scientific test that I was performing. There was none. She did not have her panties on after she was raped. If she had — and again, underlying the amount [of] seminal fluid that was found in her body, the fact that there was that much by itself ... the law of gravity indicates that if she’s on her feet, it’s going to drip out. It’s just that indelicate, but it’s true. There is no semen in her panties. Her panties were removed. She had sex, and she never put them back on, because they were around her waist. If she had had sex before these wounds were inflicted upon her body, there would be A, less semen in her than there was. Or B, semen in her panties. And you don’t have either one of them. Whoever stabbed her had sex with her right then and there, and that is him. Forget A.J., forget Melanie, forget Steve Kirk. Look at the panties. Look at the medical evidence. Look at the scientific evidence. And the only person you have is Michael Peter Fitzpatrick. It is physically, scientifically impossible for there to have been anyone else involved. (Emphasis supplied.) The prosecutor’s closing argument demonstrates the State’s near exclusive reliance on forensic evidence to support Fitzpatrick’s guilt. These statements also demonstrate how substantially different Fitzpatrick’s trial would have been if counsel did not provide constitutionally deficient representation on this issue. If counsel had performed effectively with respect to this claim, the prosecutor would not have been able to argue to the jury that the credibility of McMahan and Hall had not been challenged. He would not have been able to tell the jury to forget all the nonforensic testimony, that “there is no semen in [Romines’] panties,” or that it was “scientifically impossible for there to have been anyone else involved” in Romines’ murder other than Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick has presented, through post-conviction testing and testimony, substantial evidence that undermines confidence in the outcome of his trial. First, contrary to the State’s assertion at trial, Fitzpatrick’s semen was discovered in Romines’ underwear. This evidence, if presented, could have directly impacted a reasonable view of Fitzpatrick’s guilt because it supported Fitzpatrick’s claim of consensual sex in the morning before Romines was attacked. Second, postconviction testimony revealed that the prosecutor and McMahan made a foundational flaw by improperly interchanging the terms “motile” and “intact” sperm when testifying about the timing of the sexual encounter between Romines and Fitzpatrick. FDLE did not conduct a measurement for motility, and motility should never have been mentioned at trial. McMahan’s misunderstanding of the difference between “intact” and “motile” sperm indicates that the basis for her conclusion that sexual contact occurred between Fitzpatrick and Romines a maximum of fifteen hours before the SAVE examination was incorrectly premised on a motility time frame instead of the longer time frame associated with sperm degeneration. Third, both Dr. Spitz and Dr. Johnson, two witnesses expressly found to be credible by the postconviction court, testified that the evidence indicated that the sexual encounter between Romines and Fitzpatrick could have occurred twenty-four hours before the SAVE examination. This testimony directly contradicts the State’s timeline and supports Fitzpatrick’s timeline of consensual sex. Fourth, several of Hall’s statements regarding the amount of fluid inside Romines were not accurate evaluations of the facts at hand, were well outside the realm of her expertise, and lacked a scientific basis. In light of the severity of these errors and the dispositive nature of this issue, counsel’s deficient performance significantly undermines confidence in the outcome of Fitzpatrick’s trial. Had he not been ineffective, the jury would have received substantial evidence that supported Fitzpatrick’s claim that he had consensual sex with Romines earlier in the day and that he was not the one who attacked Romines. Consequently, we agree with the postcon-viction court that counsel’s shortcomings deprived Fitzpatrick of constitutionally adequate legal representation and hold that Fitzpatrick has met his burden to demonstrate that counsel performed ineffectively with respect to this claim. Based on this claim alone, Fitzpatrick is entitled to a new trial. Sexual Assault Testimony of Rita Hall The primary purpose of Hall’s trial testimony was to establish the underlying felony of sexual battery, which provided a statutory basis for the State to seek the death penalty through a charge of felony murder. In addition to providing her “expert” opinions on the significance of the fluid found inside Romines, Hall expressed opinions specifically with regard to her interpretation of Romines’ injuries and whether the sexual encounter between Fitzpatrick and Romines was nonconsensual. This Court summarized Hall’s testimony with respect to this evidence as follows: Rita Hall, an advanced registered nurse, who was accepted by the trial court as an expert in the field of the examination of sexual assault victims, conducted the SAVE [examination] on Romines at the hospital. Hall testified that she found a bloody undergarment wrapped around Romines’ waist near her breasts, Romines’ breasts were deep purple, there was a penetrating wound in the breast area that was either another stab wound or a bite mark, there was puffiness around her head, there was bruising on her arms, her legs were covered in scratches, and there was a cigarette burn on her leg. Hall detected several areas in the vagina and anus that were either a very deep pink or red, indicating there was pressure from something penetrating the areas. In addition, Hall testified that her findings were consistent with forced sexual activity; however, she could not determine conclusively if the sexual activity was forced. Further, the evidence established that the DNA profile developed from Romines’ vaginal swabs was consistent with the DNA profile that was developed from Fitzpatrick’s blood sample. Fitzpatrick, 900 So.2d at 504. In stark contrast to the trial proceedings, Hall’s qualifications as an expert were heavily contested during the postcon-viction process. During trial, Hall was accepted as an expert in the field of examination of sexual assault victims without voir dire or objection. During the eviden-tiary hearing, counsel testified that he did not challenge Hall’s qualifications because he was “under the impression” that she was qualified to testify. In light of the critical nature of Hall’s testimony, this statement alone is illustrative of counsel’s ineffectiveness. However, additional record evidence supports our conclusion that he was ineffective for failing to challenge Hall’s qualifications and testimony. Specifically, during the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Spitz testified that forensic nurse examiners, like Hall, have little to no involvement in the interpretation of the evidence. He further testified that Hall exceeded the scope of her expertise and provided “very misleading” testimony by interpreting Ro-mines’ injuries. Several portions of Hall’s expert opinion evidence were incorrect or misleading. Bite Mark Hall testified during trial that Romines’ breasts were deep purple with a penetrating wound that was either a stab wound or a bite mark. Dr. Spitz testified that the wound Hall characterized as a bite mark was not in fact a bite mark, but instead nothing more than a nonspecific bruise which could have been caused in many ways. Consequently, he concluded that Hall misled the jury by characterizing the wound as a shar