The Right Evidence

The case of Daubert rule and Fyre rule differs when it comes to determining whether to allow the state to present expert testimony that helps to identify voices in the background of a 911 call. The main aim of a Frye hearing is to determine whether to admit evidence derived from a novel or new scientific theory or methodology. In Frye v. the United States case, the court held that such evidence is supposed to be removed unless the new or novel scientific theory is accepted in the relevant scientific community. 

The ruling of Frye rule is viewed as a counting heads test that does not require the trial judge to understand the novel scientific theory or methodology. The disadvantage of Frye rule is that it result in the exclusion of results that are achieved with theories that are capable of producing reliable and accurate results. However, these models are too new to have passed the test of peer review and become generally accepted particularly in the relevant scientific community. On the other hand, the Daubert rule requires a significant change in this case since it appears it does not have compelling facts. Their main concern is that if the rule is changed, it will cost corporate America big money. In this case, the expert applies the preceding rules and methods that are reliable to specific facts of the case. 

Since there is much debate on whether Frye or Daubert standard is the more resourceful standard, the new standard and rules prevent the decision regarding “junk science” and lead to more credible and reliable expert testimony. In the end, the defense attorneys should welcome this new shift as compared to the previous standard that only applied to new and novel techniques. Daubert Rule if applied would allow for identification of more expert witnesses if they were used exclusively (Cheng and Yoon, 2005).

Reference

Cheng, E. K., & Yoon, A. H. (2005). Does Frye or Daubert matter? A study of scientific admissibility standards. Virginia Law Review , 471-513.