Frye Rule

A ruling by a Federal Court of Appeals (United States v. Frye, 293 F 1013—DC Cir 1923) in a criminal case in which the defendant sought to present evidence that a crude, scientifically invalid and unaccepted test showed that he was telling the truth. That court said, ‘...abandonment of the general acceptance requirement could result in a free-for-all in which befuddled juries would be confounded by absurd and irrational pseudoscientific assertions’
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
2) The Frye rule qualifies expert witnesses based upon their knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education.
Simek's argument was that the district court did not properly perform its gatekeeping role under Daubert and the Frye rule, and testimony should have been excluded because the court did not evaluate the reliability of the assessment.
For a while, most courts adhered to "the Frye rule," which allowed expert or specialized evidence in court if it was "generally accepted" within the scientific community.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals superceded the Frye rule in 1993, when the court found that evidence must be supported by the scientific method, thereby placing more importance on methodology than on general acceptance.
Similarly, those who support a reading of the Federal Rules of Evidence that discards the Frye rule have not done so because of the resultant encouragement to the educational function.
The Court recognized that the Frye rule was dead, but it resurrected the rule immediately following the burial.
The Court reached the rather obvious conclusion, especially obvious in light of the Court's consistently deferential treatment of the Federal Rules of Evidence,(27) that the Federal Rules, in particular Rule 702, superseded the Frye rule.
The Frye rule qualifies an expert witness based upon their knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education.
1994) (noting that the Frye standard has been utilized before and after Daubert but expressing that "we do not address the effect of the Daubert decision on the use or application of the Frye rule in Minnesota").
Before the adoption of the Daubert test, the federal courts, as well as some state courts, subscribed to the Frye rule.
In the Daubert case, the Court resoundingly rejected the common law Frye rule on admitting scientific evidence and the view that judges should test the general acceptability of experts' opinions.