Response 2 550

250 word response 2 references due 5/27/2023

Straw

Evidence collection, processing, and comparison must fall within the legal guidelines to be admissible against a defendant. From the readings, select a category of evidence reviewed and discuss the implications of that category with respect to the lead foundational cases of Frye v. United States (1923) and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

When a court makes the decision that an expert's testimony is inadmissible, it can have effect on the outcome of a case.  Since the laws that concern expert testimony are not the ame throughout the United States, states can be halted between admissibility of expert testimony based on two standards.  These are Daubert and Frye.  The cases of Frye versus the United States and Daubert versus Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  have caused differences in the federal and state guidelines.  In the states who use these two cases to decide about expert testimony, they use their own interpretation of these two important cases and this results in making expert testimony different between jurisdictions in the state. 

In Daubert's case the Supreme Court encouraged a more liberal approach to expert testimony by stating that certain factors must be met.  They ordered that an expert's testimony. They be subjected to tests for reliability.  they wanted the testimony to be peer reviewed by other experts.  they wanted t know the rate of the possibility of error in the theory of the expert.  They wanted certain standards and controls to be in place.  They wanted the theory of the expert to be accepted in the scientific community.  They also wanted the testimony of an expert witness to be able to stand up to vigorous examination.

In the case of Frye versus the United States, the decision was made that an expert opinion could be admissible if it was accepted in the scientific community by other experts in the field. It mean that whatever the decision of the scientific community used to establish the principle had to be well established and have gained general acceptance  in the field in question. 

The difference between the Daubert and Frye cases is Frye focuses o whether an expert's testimony is generally accepted by his scientific community. However, Daubert requires that certain factors outside of the scientific community bet met before evidence can be admissible.   Daubert is used by all federal courts.  Some state courts continue to use the Frye general acceptance test for expert testimony.  Only nine states have fully adopted Daubert standards, and some states have their own criteria for admission of expert testimony.

Some question whether judges are equipped to make decisions on expert testimony, given their lack of expertise when it comes to the scientific community. However, Daubert supports the idea that there must more rigorous standards applied to admissibility.  This decision supports the belief that there should be something else to base whether or not an expert's testimony is reliable, including whether the theory supported by the expert can be tested by other experts in the field.  Regardless of which decision  is used by the federal or state court, expert testimony is a vital part of the court proceeding that an adversely affect the outcome of a trial or other court proceeding.  When it comes to these two cases, the admissibility of expert testimony varies between federal and state court proceedings.