In Brim v. State, 695 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1997) the court held the second step of the DNA analysis process, statistical probabilities, must meet the Frye test, and in Murray we found a particular expert unqualified whose testimony did not adequately give the population frequency of a DNA profile. In Murray v. State, 692 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 1997), the unqualified expert stated Murray's DNA sample matched the one recovered from the crime scene and "91.8 percent of the population would be anticipated to have different DNA types." Murray v. State, 692 So. 2d at 163.