The Frye Standard 1923 Frye v United States Rejected the scientific validity of the polygraph lie detector Set a standard for admission of scientific evidence The procedure technique or principle must be generally accepted by relevant scientific community ID: 781112
Download The PPT/PDF document "Admissible Evidence and Expert Testimony" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
![[SOME OF] YOUR EVIDENCE QUESTIONS ANSWERED!](https://thumbs.docslides.com/720495/some-of-your-evidence-questions-answered.jpg)
Slide1
Admissible Evidence and Expert Testimony
Slide2The Frye
Standard
1923,
Frye v. United StatesRejected the scientific validity of the polygraph (lie detector)Set a standard for admission of scientific evidenceThe procedure, technique, or principle must be “generally accepted” by relevant scientific community
Slide3Federal Rules of Evidence
Alternative to the
Frye
standardWitness must qualify (education, training, etc.)Testimony must haveSufficient facts or dataReliable principles and methods Could be new or “cutting edge”
Slide4The Judge Makes the Call
1993,
Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.US Supreme Court asserted that the Frye standard is not always necessaryIt’s the judges job to ensure scientific evidence is reliable and relevantHe/She is the “gatekeeper”
Slide5Still the Judge…
1999,
Kumho
Tire Co., Ltf. V. CarmichaelThe court expanded the judge’s “gatekeeper” role from scientific evidence to all expert testimony
Slide6Case Study #1
Coppolino
v. State
Flexibility of trial judge to admit scientific evidenceNew chemical analysis designed just for this caseDid not meet the Frye standardWas based on scientifically valid principles and techniquesAdmitted under Fed Rules of Evidence
Slide7Case Study #2
State v.
Jascalevich
Prosecution and defense may have conflicting “expert testimony”Judge admitting testimony does not mean he “supports it”The jury ultimately decides the “value” of the testimony.
Slide8Jascalevich Cont.
The defense “experts” performed their own tests
Defense attacked
Validity of the procedureReproducibility of dataOther factors that influenced the testUltimately the defense had the stronger argument – the new method was not convincing to the jury
Slide91923,
Frye v. United
States
Federal Rules of EvidenceDaubert Case