{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Frye'' standard}} {{short description|U.S. legal test on the admissibility of scientific evidence}}
In United States law, the '''''Frye'' standard''', '''''Frye'' test''', or '''general acceptance test''' is a judicial test used in some U.S. state courts to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only when the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community. In ''Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals'', 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence superseded ''Frye'' as the standard for admissibility of expert evidence in federal courts.<ref>Arvin Maskin, Konrad Cailteux, "The Supreme Court Establishes Standard of Review for Daubert Decisions and Reaffirms District Court," March 1998, http://www.weil.com/news/pubdetail.aspx?pub=3467 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110718024859/http://www.weil.com/news/pubdetail.aspx?pub=3467 |date=2011-07-18 }} LINK OUTDATED 10/7/15</ref> Some states, however, still adhere to the ''Frye'' standard.
==History== This standard comes from ''Frye v. United States'', 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), a case discussing the admissibility of systolic blood pressure deception test as evidence.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20191112201337/https://casetext.com/case/frye-v-united-states-7 ''Frye v. United States'', 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).]</ref> The Court in ''Frye'' held that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted.<ref name="World of Forensic Science">[http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/frye-standard], E-notes, World of Forensic Science, Frye Standard</ref> The court wrote:
{{blockquote|Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while the courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made ''must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance'' in the particular field in which it belongs. (Emphasis added.)|author=|title=|source=}}
In many but not all jurisdictions, the ''Frye'' standard has been superseded by the ''Daubert'' standard. States still following ''Frye'' include: California, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington.<ref name="The Status of Daubert in State Courts">{{Cite web |url=http://www.atlanticlegal.org/daubertreport.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2014-06-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121202040546/http://www.atlanticlegal.org/daubertreport.pdf |archive-date=2012-12-02 |url-status=dead }}</ref> New Jersey follows a model that closely resembles Daubert for civil, criminal and quasi-criminal.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2019/05/23/daubert-evidence-standard-takes-immediate-effect-in-florida-after-high-court-turnaround/| title = 'Daubert' Evidence Standard Takes Immediate Effect in Florida After High Court Turnaround {{!}} Daily Business Review}} </ref><ref>[https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2020/47a19.pdf ''Rochkind v. Stevenson'', 471 Md. 1, 236 A.3d 630 (Md. 2020).]</ref>
== Definition == The court must determine that the scientific evidence is "generally accepted" by a significant portion of the relevant scientific community in order for it to satisfy the ''Frye'' standard. This pertains to any methods, ideas, or strategies that could be used during a court case.
In practical application of this standard, those who were proponents of a widely disputed scientific issue had to provide a number of experts to speak to the validity of the science behind the issue in question.
Novel techniques, placed under the scrutiny of this standard, forced courts to examine papers, books and judicial precedents on the subject at hand to make determinations as to the reliability and "general acceptance."
== Commentary == While ''Daubert'' has superseded ''Frye'', the standard of ''Daubert'' is not substantially different. While the focus of the inquiry has changed, the result rarely does. Accordingly, the ''Daubert'' standard has been described as "''Frye'' in drag."<ref>See Paul R. Rice, ''Evidence: Common Law and Federal Rules of Evidence'' 6th Ed. Lexis-Nexus (2009) {{ISBN|978-1422472712}}</ref>
As an alternative to this standard, the courts have generally adopted Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as the primary for expert testimony and scientific evidence.
==See also== *''Daubert'' standard, a later precedent for the admissibility of expert testimony *Objective historian
==References== *{{wikisource-inline|Frye v. United States}} {{Reflist}}
==External links== * [https://web.archive.org/web/20090907161822/http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3210/3210lect01a.htm Admissibility of Scientific Evidence Under ''Daubert''] (compares the ''Daubert'' and ''Frye'' standards, and their usage in different parts of the U.S.) * [https://ssrn.com/abstract=262034 Frye, Frye, Again: The Past, Present, and Future of the General Acceptance Test]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Frye Standard}} Category:United States expert witness case law