Frye Standard

Definition

The Frye Standard is a legal standard used to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence in court, established by the 1923 case Frye v. United States. It asserts that scientific evidence is admissible only if it has gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. This standard emphasizes the importance of reliability and validity in the presentation of expert testimony and scientific findings during trials.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Frye Standard was established in response to the case involving the use of polygraph tests as evidence, ultimately deeming them inadmissible due to lack of general acceptance.
2. Under the Frye Standard, judges act as gatekeepers, assessing whether scientific methods have been widely accepted among experts in the field before allowing evidence to be presented in court.
3. This standard remains influential in some jurisdictions, though many have adopted the Daubert Standard, which provides a more flexible approach to assessing scientific evidence.
4. General acceptance can be determined by reviewing publications, expert testimony, and professional consensus within the relevant scientific community.
5. The Frye Standard places a heavier burden on proponents of scientific evidence to demonstrate its acceptance rather than merely showing its reliability.

Review Questions

• How does the Frye Standard compare to the Daubert Standard in terms of admissibility of scientific evidence?
  • The Frye Standard focuses primarily on whether a scientific method or principle has gained general acceptance within the relevant scientific community, serving as a strict gatekeeper for admissibility. In contrast, the Daubert Standard allows for a more flexible approach, where judges evaluate factors such as testability, peer review, and error rates to determine reliability and relevance. This shift means that while Frye requires acceptance from the community, Daubert emphasizes a broader consideration of the evidence's validity.
• What role does general acceptance play in determining admissibility under the Frye Standard?
  • General acceptance is a crucial criterion under the Frye Standard for admitting scientific evidence in court. It requires that the methods or techniques used to produce evidence are recognized as valid by experts within the specific scientific field. This concept ensures that only scientifically sound practices are utilized in legal proceedings, preventing unreliable or unproven methods from influencing court decisions.
• Evaluate how the Frye Standard's emphasis on general acceptance might impact legal outcomes compared to other standards like Daubert.
  • The Frye Standard's emphasis on general acceptance can significantly influence legal outcomes by potentially excluding innovative or novel scientific evidence that has not yet garnered widespread approval among experts. This could hinder cases that rely on cutting-edge science or technology from being fully considered in court. Conversely, while Daubert allows more flexibility and encourages consideration of emerging evidence, it also opens the door for potentially unreliable or controversial methods to be presented if they meet certain criteria. This dichotomy reflects differing philosophies about how courts should navigate complex scientific issues while seeking justice.

Related terms

Daubert Standard:

A more recent standard that evaluates the admissibility of expert witness testimony based on reliability and relevance, replacing the Frye Standard in many jurisdictions.

Expert Testimony: Evidence presented in court by a qualified individual with specialized knowledge or expertise relevant to the case.

Scientific Method: A systematic process used to gather knowledge, involving observation, experimentation, and validation, forming the basis for establishing reliable scientific evidence.