Although the Daubert standard was adopted by federal courts in 2000 and Florida courts in 2013, an earlier legal construct called the “Frye Rule” is still used in many other states, including California, Maryland, and Washington. Based on the appeal case, Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), the Frye Standard allows scientific evidence to be admitted in court if it meets the rule of “general acceptance,” meaning that scientific evidence is generally accepted in the scientific community. Opinions on which test is best in terms of the admissibility of scientific evidence in court differ widely: the most lenient lawyers argue that judges are unable to make the decisions required under Daubert, while others argue that the Daubert criteria are necessary to improve the quality of evidence in court. The rule is that the opinions of experts or expert witnesses are conclusively admissible in cases where the subject matter of the investigation is such that it is unlikely that inexperienced persons will prove capable of making a correct judgment about it, on the grounds that the object has so far participated in a science, art or profession, that it requires previous habit, experience or study. to acquire knowledge about it. If the matter in question does not relate to general experience or knowledge, but requires specific experience or knowledge, submissions from witnesses qualified in the science, art or profession to which the question relates are admissible as evidence. Given the differences between Daubert and Frye, the challenge and defence of the admissibility of the experts must be adapted to the relevant standard. If one tries to allow expert testimony under Frye, the expert`s opinion must be “generally accepted” within his or her scientific community. The “general acceptance criterion” to which Frye is most often referred asks its own questions, which must be analyzed to determine eligibility.
Successful reasoning under Frye should take into account some key points of the standard. According to the Daubert standard, the following factors can be taken into account in determining whether the methodology is valid: (1) whether the theory or technique in question can and has been tested; (2) if it has been peer-reviewed and published; (3) its level of known or potential error; (4)the existence and maintenance of standards that monitor its functioning; and (5) whether it has been widely accepted by a relevant scientific community. In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 526 USA 137 (1999), the Supreme Court clarified that the Daubert factors may apply to non-scientific testimony, that is, “the testimony of engineers and other experts who are not scientists.” Under this standard, a Daubert application is made in the case to exclude unqualified evidence at trial, which then requires the judge to make a decision on admissibility according to the Daubert criteria at a hearing before the jury is composed. According to the Committee`s Notes on the Rules (2000), the trial judge must determine the admissibility of scientific evidence on the basis of the non-exclusive list of factors set out in Daubert: under this new standard, the Court encouraged a more liberal approach to the admission of expert testimony and emphasized the importance of vigorous cross-examination of witnesses. Daubert`s decision to relax the standards of admissibility of expert opinions was explained in more detail by his descendants. In General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 USA 136 (1997), the Court stressed the importance of expert methodology, which objected to focusing solely on the final opinion, noting that “conclusions and methodology are not completely separate”. Based on their credentials, work experience and review of the evidence presented in court, experts may testify about events they have not witnessed first-hand.
This is generally acceptable in the case of bodily injury, mass offences or accidents. In order to ensure the admissibility of expert testimony, it is essential to understand the applicable standard of admissibility of experts in the jurisdiction in which the case is heard. In U.S. jurisprudence, there are generally two important competing standards based on two landmark decisions – a brain circuit case, Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), and a decision of the United States Supreme Court, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
579 (1993). While the federal judicial system followed Daubert exclusively, the state courts were divided between the two. A number of states continue to use the Frye standard and, interestingly, not all states that have adopted Daubert (about 27) have applied the standard uniformly. More than 50 years after Frye Holding, Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with Rule 702 providing guidance on the admissibility of experts.
Comments are closed.