231 A.3d 855
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background:
- Victim Janet Walsh was strangled in 1979; no contemporaneous evidence of semen was observed at the scene.
- Decades later (2010) investigators found Hopkins’s seminal DNA on the top sheet, nightgown, and bathrobe belt; DNA testing cannot date deposits.
- Commonwealth’s expert Dr. Cyril Wecht testified that the "topographical distribution" of the semen showed Hopkins ejaculated on the victim at or around the time of death.
- Trial counsel moved to preclude Dr. Wecht on non-scientific/speculation grounds (Rule 702(a)/(b)) but did not file a Frye/Rule 702(c) challenge to the methodology; the Superior Court allowed Dr. Wecht to testify and Hopkins was convicted.
- On PCRA review Hopkins argued counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a Frye hearing; PCRA court denied relief but the Superior Court found the methodology novel, not generally accepted, that counsel had no reasonable basis to omit a Frye challenge, and that admission of the testimony was prejudicial.
- Remedy: Superior Court reversed the PCRA denial and remanded for a new trial excluding "topographical distribution" expert opinion.
Issues:
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Wecht’s "topographical distribution" opinion is novel scientific evidence requiring Frye | The opinion is a novel scientific methodology that lacks general acceptance | The opinion was non-scientific/common-sense or within expert experience and admissible under Rule 702(a)/(b) | It was presented as a scientific/novel opinion; Frye/Rule 702(c) applies and no generally accepted methodology supports it |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Frye hearing | Counsel should have moved under Frye and developed expert rebuttal; failing to do so lacked a reasonable basis | Counsel reasonably pursued other pretrial objections and strategy | No reasonable basis for omission; performance was deficient |
| Whether Hopkins was prejudiced by admission of the testimony | Dr. Wecht’s testimony was the centerpiece of the Commonwealth’s case and likely changed the verdict | The rest of the evidence supported conviction | Prejudice shown: reasonable probability of a different outcome without the testimony; new trial granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (establishes the "general acceptance" test for novel scientific evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Topa, 369 A.2d 1277 (Pa. 1977) (Pennsylvania adopted Frye)
- Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 839 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 2003) (retained Frye over Daubert)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 92 A.3d 766 (Pa. 2014) (Rule 702 requires that expert methodology be generally accepted)
- Snizavich v. Rohm & Haas Co., 83 A.3d 191 (Pa. Super. 2013) (expert opinion must point to scientific authority, not mere personal belief)