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.
From 1923 until 1993 many American courts relied on the Frye rule, whose effect was that if it could be shown that there was fundamental disagreement in the relevant scientific community about a proposition or inference, then that proposition or inference could not stand as evidence.
Daubert, 2798) That tension between law and science is illustrated well in courts' grappling with the obvious purpose of the Frye rule to limit "junk science" by establishing a sound basis for expert legal testimony, and the purpose of science to encourage development of knowledge by experimentation.
While the district court imposed a general acceptance test under Rule 703 without mentioning Frye, the Ninth Circuit explicitly endorsed the Frye rule, stating, "Expert opinion based on a scientific technique 'is admissible if it is generally accepted as a reliable technique among the scientific community.
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 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.