Study Guide #25
Admissibility of Scientific Evidence
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence admissible if relevant and competent
Prior to 1923, U.S. courts treated scientific evidence like any other evidence
Frye
v.
U.S.
Frye accused of murder in Washington, D.C.
Sought to admit results of primitive polygraph test which indicated his innocence
Prosecution objected that test was controversial
Court Ruling in
Frye
Difficult to determine when a scientific technique crosses over from experimental to reliable
Underlying theory must be
generally accepted by particular scientific community from which it arises
Impact of
Frye
Became law in U.S. Federal courts from 1923 to 1976
Was adopted by about 25 states
Other states continued to use relevancy test
New Federal Rules of Evidence: 1976
Daubert
v.
Merrill Dow
A Toxic Tort Case
The Case
Daubert took
Bendectin
(an antiemetic during pregnancy)
Baby born with birth defects
Daubert sues Merrill Dow for toxic tort
Plaintiff and defendant both use epidemiology statistics to assess if Bendectin contributed to defects.
The Dispute
Defendant (Merrill Dow), claims that plaintiff’s experts use non-standard analytical methods to arrive at conclusion that Bendectin caused defects
Court disallows plaintiff experts’ testimony on basis of
Frye
(methods not generally accepted by scientific community
At defendant request, court directs verdict in favor of defendant
The Appeal
Plaintiff appeals to supreme court on grounds that
Frye
doesn’t control and is too restrictive
Supreme court reverses and remands on grounds that
Frye
has been superseded by
federal rules of evidence
Trial court must revisit admissibility of plaintiff’s evidence based on federal rules
Other Findings
Judge has responsibility to determine if scientific method is reliable and valid
(GATEKEEPER)
Frye
is too restrictive. There are other methods for determining if scientific evidence should be admitted
Return to Study Guides