Compare and contrast the Daubert standard and the Frye standard for evaluating expert testimony.
What will be an ideal response?
The 
standard was known as the general acceptance rule and held that an expert’s evidence must have been gathered using scientific techniques that had reached a general acceptance in the science field. Once that standard had been met, all relevant testimony would be admissible. In the 
case,the Supreme Court supported the standard set by the Rules of Evidence. It ruled that expert evidence must be relevant, reliable, and legally sufficient and that its probative value must outweigh its prejudicial value. In essence, the Court required that federal judges act as gatekeepers, scrutinizing expert evidence very carefully before admitting it into court. General acceptance by the scientific community could be taken into consideration in deciding whether evidence was reliable but should not be a 
condition.
You might also like to view...
Courts in which trial proceedings are transcribed are called __________
Fill in the blank(s) with correct word
The most important issue concerning use of intermediate sanctions has to do with prison overcrowding.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
PCR are regions of a chromosome that contain multiple copies of a core DNA sequence arranged in a repeating fashion
Indicate whether the statement is true or false.
___________ could be considered both a type of institutional corrections and a community corrections program, given that offenders reside in a facility (a community facility, jail, or prison) but are released to the community for a short duration every day to work, attend education classes, or both.
A. Boot camps B. Restitution centers C. Work release D. Therapeutic centers