User:Annon1126/sandbox

Article: Frye Standard

 Possible improvements: 


 * Further explain replacements ( Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence & Daubert Standard )
 * Replace 2nd citation w/ credible source

 Specific Section(s): 


 * Commentary
 * References
 * History (only change citation)

History (first sentence only, unedited, only changed citation #2)
This standard comes from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), a case discussing the admissibility of systolic blood pressure deception test as evidence. The Court in Frye held that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted.

Commentary (unedited)
"While Daubert has superseded Frye, the standard of Daubert is not substantially different. While the focus of the inquiry has changed, the result rarely does. Accordingly, the Daubert standard has been described as "Frye in drag."

Difficulty in the application of this standard has produced questions about whether or not the standard is flexible enough to adapt to truly new and novel scientific issues, where "general" or "widespread" acceptance may not yet be garnered. On the other hand, whether new and novel allegedly scientific issues are matters of relevance to the court has been questioned.

As an alternative to this standard, the courts have generally adopted Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as the primary for expert testimony and scientific evidence."

Commentary (edited)
While Daubert has superseded Frye, the standard of Daubert is not substantially different. The Daubert standard inquiry focuses on the scientific innovation's testability, peer review, error rate, the sustainability of standards controlling this innovation, and (like the Frye standard) acceptance in scientific community. Accordingly, the Daubert standard has been described as "Frye in drag."

The question presides wether or not the standard is flexible enough to adapt to truly new and novel scientific issues, where "general" or "widespread acceptance may not yet be garnered. On the other hand, whether new and novel allegedly scientific issues are matters of relevance to the court has been questioned.

As an alternative to this standard, the courts have generally adopted Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as the primary for expert testimony and scientific evidence. Which indicates an expert can testify as long as they: aid in the understanding of evidence, the testimony is fact or data based, testimony is a result of reliable practices, and the expert appropriately applied these practices to the case.