compare and contrast the daubert ruling and frye standard
The Daubert ruling and the Frye standard are both important legal standards used in the United States to determine the admissibility of expert scientific testimony in court. While they share some similarities, there are also significant differences between the two.
1. Frye Standard:
- Origin: The Frye standard was established in the 1923 case of Frye v. United States and has been the dominant standard in many U.S. jurisdictions for several decades.
- General Principle: The Frye standard focuses on the general acceptance of scientific evidence within a particular scientific community. Under this standard, scientific evidence is admissible if it is widely accepted by the relevant scientific community in which it originates.
- Legal Test: The Frye test requires the proponent of the scientific evidence to demonstrate that the scientific technique or theory used by the expert witness is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community.
- Limitations: This standard has been criticized for being too stringent and restricting new and innovative scientific evidence from being admitted in court. Moreover, it does not allow for a judge's role in determining the reliability of scientific evidence.
2. Daubert Ruling:
- Origin: The Daubert ruling came from the 1993 Supreme Court case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- General Principle: The Daubert ruling shifted the focus from general acceptance to a more flexible and individualized approach. It focuses on the reliability and relevance of the scientific evidence rather than its general acceptance.
- Legal Test: Daubert established a four-part test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It requires the judge to assess the reliability of the methodology used, whether it has been subject to peer review, its known or potential error rate, and whether it is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. It allows judges to play a gatekeeper role in determining the admissibility of scientific evidence.
- Flexibility: The Daubert ruling allows judges to admit novel scientific evidence that may not yet have widespread acceptance but meets the criteria of reliability, relevance, and peer review.
- Application: The Daubert standard is now widely accepted in federal courts and many state courts, replacing the Frye standard in those jurisdictions.
In summary, while the Frye standard focuses on general acceptance within a scientific community, the Daubert ruling emphasizes the reliability and relevance of scientific evidence. The Frye standard is more stringent and less flexible than the Daubert ruling, which is seen as a more modern and flexible approach.