by: “1) introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness’s present testimony; 2) showing that the witness is biased; '[or] 3) attacking the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of sections *90.609 or 90.610.” If a party chooses to impeach by attacking the character of a witness, it must do so by admitting evidence in the form of reputation (under section 90.609) or conviction of certain crimes (under section • 90.610). Therefore, “evidence of particular acts of ethical misconduct cannot be-introduced to impeach the credibility of a witness.” Pantoja v. State, 59 So.3d 1092, 1096 (Fla. 2011). These questions, were impermissible attacks on Dr. Lloyd’s credibility or character. See also Farinas v. State, 569 So.2d 425, 429 (Fla.1990) (<HOLDING>); Roosevelt v. State, 42 So.3d 293, 296 (Fla.
holding that because the line of questioning was not relevant to the credibility of the witness and sought information about which the witness had no knowledge it was not a constitutional violation to sustain the objection holding that questioning expert witness about specific allegations of misconduct was improper impeachment holding that it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness holding that any error in excluding impeachment evidence about witnesss drug use in general was harmless when witness was heavily impeached in other ways holding that it is proper to refer to evidence of prior acts of misconduct in the closing arguments on the issue of credibility but it is improper to argue about misdeeds for any purpose other than impeachment because the acts were submitted for impeachment purposes only