Dana Williamson v. State of Florida — Pariente, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Pariente dissents from the Florida Supreme Court’s affirmation of the denial of post‑conviction relief, arguing that the majority misapplied the prejudice standard for ineffective‑assistance claims and erred in allowing Dr. Ofshe’s expert testimony. She contends that the prejudice prong requires a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome, not proof that the result would have been different, and that the expert testimony should have been excluded under the Frye test. Accordingly, she would reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial without the tainted testimony.