Early Daubert
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 3:54 pm
The following is a conclusion to an article titled “Supreme Court Knocks Out Frye Admissibility Test for Scientific Evidence in Federal Arena” by David G. Ego—Legal Counsel Division—FBI Washington DC and was originally published in the “Crime Laboratory Digest” Vol. 20 (2) April 1993. The copy I have came out of the CBD-IAI issue of 1994 and I do not remember if it was the spring or fall.
Too bad they did not have a crystal ball in 1993.
This author also talked earlier about the relevancy standard and went into some detail about it. Does the relevancy standard still have some weight in Federal Court or has it all come down just to the Daubert criteria?
Conclusion
Expert testimony generated from new and emerging technologies should face a less rigorous threshold of admissibility in all federal courts and state courts following the Daubert decision. According to Daubert, general acceptance is not a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence in federal courts. Nevertheless, general acceptance may still be used as a factor to determine reliability of the specific novel scientific technique. As new technologies are developed and validated, the Daubert ruling should help alleviate the costly Frye hearings that have hindered the introduction of new techniques such as DNA. Although, it will be easier to present new scientific technologies to the jury, the relevancy standard still has adequate safeguards to prevent junk science from being improperly admitted or considered by a trier of fact.
Too bad they did not have a crystal ball in 1993.
This author also talked earlier about the relevancy standard and went into some detail about it. Does the relevancy standard still have some weight in Federal Court or has it all come down just to the Daubert criteria?