Describe the differences between the Frye and Daubert standards, using scholarly sources from the Internet to go beyond the discussion in the text. Which standard does your state use?
Response Guidelines
Respond to the posts of at least two other learners. Your responses to other learners are expected to be substantive and to reference the assigned readings and other theoretical, empirical, or professional literature to support your views. In addition, replying to your respondents provides additional opportunities to present analysis and new insights, as well as promote dialogue among your fellow learners.
Also if you can reply to Lyneve in a separate paragraph please and thank you
The Daubert Standard is used to assess whether an expert witnesses scientific testimony is based on scientifically valid reasoning which can properly be applied to the facts at issue. there are five factors that are considered in determining whether the methodology is valid. 1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4)the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and (5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community (Cornell University Law School, n.d).
The Frye Standard is a test that is use to determine admissibility of evidence and expert scientific testimony. It limits accessible evidence and expert testimony to only methodologies that are broadly used, accepted, and recognized by other experts in that specific field (Cornell University Law School, n.d).
New Mexico uses the Daubert-Alberico test for the admissibility of expert witness testimony.
The Daubert standard remains the same, while the Alberico standard adds three requirements: “(1) experts must be qualified; (2) their testimony must assist the trier of fact; and (3) their testimony must be limited to the area of scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge in which they are qualified.”
Resources:
Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). Frye standard. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/frye_standard
Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). Daubert standard. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard
Also if you can reply to Taylor in a SEPERATE paragraph please thank you
Hello everyone!
Frye:
Frye standards are a bit outdated in regard to the notion that general acceptance of a methodology of technique warrants its ability to aid in a trial. By Frye standards, new valid scientific evidence is excluded because it is not known by many yet, thus it is deemed unfit for court. This set of standards promotes the banning of “novel clinical testimony” (Melton & Condie, 2018) on the basis that the diagnosed disorder was not currently in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) at the time of said trial, or it was and it was not relevant enough. In fact, these standards permitted the admission of evidence based on faulty ideas that were generally accepted at the time. Supporters of Frye standards argue that mental health professionals should agree that “clinical opinions are based on ‘generally accepted’ theories.” Many critics refer to Frye’s standards as “unduly conservative,” (Melton & Condie, 2018)
Daubert:
When Daubert standards were developed, the court came to the conclusion that “Frye’s ‘threshold’ standard of scientific reliability or expert credibility was misguided,” (Melton & Condie, 2018). The court further stated that opinions be based on “an inference or assertion… derived by the scientific method.” When these standards were being established, they seemed to be quite liberal, but indeed are more conservative as they require ‘testing’. In fact, the court came up with four criteria for determining admissibility in court, they include: can the theory be tested?, what is the rate of error with using the technique?, has the theory been subject to peer review and publication?, and is the theory generally accepted by field experts? In doing this the court hopes that the focus of expert testimony is on “principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate,” (Melton & Condie, 2018). Under the Daubert standards, courts avoided psychological testimonies as they were considered ‘specialized’ not ‘scientific’ knowledge. However, in 1999, Rule 702 was amended and required that judges consider psychological expert witnesses for use in trials (Melton & Condie, 2018). Critics of Daubert standards state that these standards would eliminate ways of considering human behavior that could potentially help the ‘trier’ of facts beyond common sense (Melton & Condie, 2018). If fact, they urge that the requirement that a testimony be “verifiable” is too demanding, overbroad, yet too narrow. They go as far as to say, “just because something is ‘verifiable’ does not mean that testimony based on it will help the jury,” (Melton & Condie, 2018).
Florida: Frye or Daubert?
In 2013, Florida adopted the Daubert standards into the court rooms state wide. However, in 2017, the Florida Supreme Court “rejected the Daubert standard,” thus upholding the Frye standard for expert witness testimony (Edwards & Edwards, 2020). Then, in 2018, DeLisle vs. Crane Co., challenged that “the legislature’s amendment to F.S. §90.702 was declared an unconstitutional infringement of the court’s oversight of the procedural rules of evidence,” (Edwards & Edwards, 2020). Finally, in 2019 the courts reverted back to Daubert standards and they have been in place since.
References:
Edwards, T. S., & Edwards, J. R. (2020). The Daubert expert standard: A Primer for Florida Judges and Lawyers. The Florida Bar. Retrieved April 2023, from https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-daubert-expert-standard-a-primer-for-florida-judges-and-lawyers/#:~:text=Florida%20state%20courts%20now%20follow,also%20addressed%20the%20Daubert%20standard.
Melton, & Condie, L. O. (2018). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. (4th ed.). Guilford.
