Kelly-Frye and Daubert Decisions:
Compare and contrast the elements of the Kelly_Frye and Daubert decisions. What do you think about each decision and how it pertains to the rules of evidence?
Please note that we don't do students' homework for them. Be sure to go back into your textbook or use a good search engine. http://hanlib.sou.edu/searchtools/
Once YOU have come up with attempted answers to YOUR questions, please re-post and let us know what you think. Then someone here will be happy to comment on your thinking.
The Kelly-Frye and Daubert decisions are two landmark court cases that have greatly influenced the rules of evidence in the United States, particularly in the field of scientific expert testimony. Let's compare and contrast the elements of these decisions and discuss their implications for the rules of evidence.
1. Kelly-Frye Decision:
The Kelly-Frye decision, also known as the Frye standard, originated from a 1923 court case, Frye v. United States. This decision established the general acceptance test for the admissibility of scientific evidence. According to the Frye standard, scientific evidence is admissible in court if it is based on a scientific technique that is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community.
Key elements of the Kelly-Frye decision:
a. General acceptance test: The scientific technique must have gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.
b. Limitation to scientific evidence: The Frye standard is specific to scientific evidence and does not necessarily apply to other forms of expert testimony.
2. Daubert Decision:
The Daubert decision, named after the court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), replaced the Frye standard as the governing rule for the admissibility of expert testimony in the federal court system. The Daubert decision broadened the scope of admissible scientific evidence and introduced a more flexible and expansive approach.
Key elements of the Daubert decision:
a. Gatekeeping role for judges: Judges are assigned the responsibility to act as "gatekeepers" of scientific evidence by assessing its relevance and reliability before it is presented to a jury.
b. Factors for evaluating scientific evidence: The Daubert decision listed several factors that judges should consider in determining the admissibility of scientific evidence, such as whether the theory or technique has been subject to scientific peer review, the known or potential error rate, and the general acceptance of the methodology.
c. Focus on methodology: Daubert emphasizes the importance of evaluating the methodology underlying scientific evidence, rather than solely relying on whether it has gained general acceptance.
In terms of their implications for the rules of evidence, both decisions have played a significant role in shaping the admissibility standards for scientific expert testimony. The Frye standard provided a more conservative approach by requiring general acceptance within the scientific community. On the other hand, the Daubert decision shifted the focus to the reliability and relevance of scientific evidence, allowing for more flexibility.
Opinions on these decisions and their impact on the rules of evidence vary. Supporters of the Frye standard argue that it provides a stricter safeguard against unreliable and pseudoscientific evidence, while critics argue that it can hinder the progress of scientific advancements. The Daubert decision, although more permissive in admitting expert testimony, has been praised for encouraging a more rigorous evaluation of scientific evidence, while also granting judges more discretion in assessing its admissibility.
Ultimately, the Kelly-Frye and Daubert decisions have shaped the rules of evidence by influencing the admissibility criteria for scientific expert testimony. Both decisions have their strengths and weaknesses, reflecting the ongoing debate around striking a balance between reliability, general acceptance, and flexibility in assessing scientific evidence in the courtroom.