Daubert vs. Frey

Attribute	Daubert	Frey
Standard for admissibility of expert testimony	General acceptance test	Gatekeeping role for judges
Focus	Reliability of expert testimony	Relevance of expert testimony
Factors considered	Peer review, error rate, general acceptance, etc.	Probative value, reliability, relevance, etc.
Impact on expert testimony	More stringent requirements	Less stringent requirements

Introduction

When it comes to the admissibility of expert testimony in court, two major standards have emerged as the most commonly used in the United States: the Daubert standard and the Frye standard. Both standards serve as guidelines for judges to determine the reliability and relevance of expert testimony, but they differ in their approach and requirements. In this article, we will compare the attributes of the Daubert and Frye standards to better understand their implications in the legal system.

Daubert Standard

The Daubert standard, established in the 1993 Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, focuses on the scientific validity and methodology of expert testimony. Under the Daubert standard, judges are tasked with ensuring that expert testimony is based on reliable principles and methods, and that it has been applied properly to the facts of the case. This standard allows judges to act as gatekeepers, excluding expert testimony that does not meet the criteria of reliability and relevance.

• Emphasis on scientific validity and methodology
• Judges act as gatekeepers
• Focus on reliability and relevance

Frye Standard

The Frye standard, originating from the 1923 case Frye v. United States, takes a different approach to the admissibility of expert testimony. Under the Frye standard, expert testimony is admissible if it is based on principles that are generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. This standard places less emphasis on the methodology used by the expert and more on the consensus within the scientific community. The Frye standard is often criticized for being too restrictive and outdated in the face of rapidly evolving scientific knowledge.

• Reliance on general acceptance within the scientific community
• Less emphasis on methodology
• Criticism for being restrictive and outdated

Comparison

When comparing the Daubert and Frye standards, several key differences emerge. The Daubert standard places a greater emphasis on the methodology and reliability of expert testimony, allowing judges to consider a wider range of factors in determining admissibility. In contrast, the Frye standard relies heavily on the general acceptance of principles within the scientific community, which can limit the admissibility of expert testimony based on newer or less established scientific theories.

• Daubert focuses on methodology and reliability
• Frye relies on general acceptance within the scientific community
• Daubert allows for a broader range of factors to be considered
• Frye can be restrictive towards newer scientific theories

Another key difference between the two standards is the role of the judge in determining the admissibility of expert testimony. Under the Daubert standard, judges are given more discretion to evaluate the reliability and relevance of expert testimony, acting as gatekeepers to exclude unreliable or irrelevant evidence. In contrast, the Frye standard places more emphasis on the consensus within the scientific community, limiting the judge's role to determining whether the expert testimony is based on generally accepted principles.

Furthermore, the Daubert standard has been adopted by the Federal Rules of Evidence, making it the prevailing standard in federal courts. This has led to a more uniform approach to the admissibility of expert testimony across different jurisdictions. On the other hand, the Frye standard is still used in some states, leading to inconsistencies in the admissibility of expert testimony depending on the jurisdiction.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Daubert and Frye standards represent two distinct approaches to the admissibility of expert testimony in court. While the Daubert standard focuses on the methodology and reliability of expert testimony, allowing judges to act as gatekeepers, the Frye standard relies on the general acceptance of principles within the scientific community. Each standard has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice between the two can have significant implications for the admissibility of expert testimony in a given case. Ultimately, it is important for legal practitioners to understand the differences between these standards and their potential impact on the outcome of a case.