Frye Rule

(redirected from Frye test)
Also found in: Wikipedia.
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 ?
Appeals established a new rule of evidence: the Frye test.
The majority's holding that an opinion about specific causation need not pass the Frye test, even where the underlying theory of general causation is not accepted, in effect renders specific causation testimony always admissible as the "pure opinion" of the expert.
24) Though the Frye test appeared to require only a single, simple level of inquiry--that of determining "general acceptance"--in reality, the test required multiple steps of evaluation, each fraught with its own difficulties.
In the years after Frye, "sharp divisions" developed among the circuits about the proper standard for the admission of expert testimony, with some courts applying the Frye test and others rejecting it.
These states do not apply the Frye test to expert opinions about scientific causation, let alone to expertise that does not rise to the level of hard science.
Part III looks at how various jurisdictions dealt with the issue of spectrograph evidence under the Frye test in the pre-Daubert era.
According to this rule of thumb, known as the Frye test, the scientific techniques at issue had to be "generally accepted" as reliable by the scientific community.
The Court rejected the Frye test, which for seventy years had set the standard for admission of scientific evidence, not because it found fault with its "general acceptance" rule (though that rule has had many detractors over the years) but because the Court concluded that Congress, in adopting the Federal Rules of Evidence twenty years ago, chose not to incorporate Frye into them.
The Frye test has been accepted as the standard in practically all of the courts of this country which have considered the question of the admissibility of new scientific evidence," the Kansas Supreme Court observed in 1979.
For example, when challenges are brought to the admissibility of novel scientific evidence, the appellate court will apply a two-part analysis to implement the Frye test set forth in Frye v.
Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Rules of Evidence have superseded the Frye test in federal trials.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Federal Rules of Evidence superseded the Frye test.