Discuss, describe, compare, and contrast the Frye rule with its successor, the Daubert rule

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The Frye general acceptance test was subject to significant criticisms. Some thought the test was too broad because it permitted expert scientific testimony in areas where no real scientific methods had been followed. The Frye test was also criticized as too narrow because otherwise reliable scientific evidence might be inadmissible even though it had sound theoretical and experimental foundations. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals Co.14 rejected the Frye test and held that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 created its own standard for the introduction of scientific evidence. The Daubert Court suggested that the trial court consider various factors in assessing scientific validity: (1) Has the theory been tested? (2) Has the theory been subjected to peer review by other scientists? (3) What is the theory's or technique's known or potential rate of error? (4) Do standards controlling the application of the theory or technique exist? (5) Is the theory or technique generally accepted? In 1999 the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Daubert test was applicable to technical as well as scientific evidence.