Case Law and Forensic Science

1725 Words 7 Pages
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

Case Law and Forensic Science

Case Law and Forensic Science
The Frye Standard had been the base by which expert testimony was introduced in federal courts until the Supreme Court case of Daubert vs. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals in 1993. The Daubert Standard would come to replace the Frye Standard in federal court. Although state would not be held by that standard they would follow suit by looking toward federal case law in decisions involving expert testimony. “If scientific or technical knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact, "a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, may testify thereto in the
…show more content…
In the same sense the concealment of evidence, any form of guilt, of deception would also have the same effect therefore raising a defendant’s blood pressure which supposedly corresponds with the struggle of concealing evidence within the defendants mind. Theoretically if a defendant is telling the truth there should be no rise in the systolic blood pressure since it is considered spontaneous and does not require conscious effort of concealment. Therefore the test combined with expert witness testimony to assert the or translate and explain the readings was able to help convict the defendant in the case of Frye and the United States setting a standard for the introduction of expert witness testimony (G.J. Annas 1994). The rule for the Frye standard is witnesses that are experts or skilled may present their opinions as admissible evidence in cases whereas an inexperienced person may not have the ability to provide the right judgment in cases involving science, arts or a trade which requires expert or experienced individuals to explain and understand the intricacies of said science, trade or art. Therefore if the question relies on the knowledge of someone who is an expert or experienced in that art, science or trade and is not considered common knowledge then the opinions of those experts are admissible as evidence according to the Frye Stand (Cornell University Law School, 2014).

More about Case Law and Forensic Science

Open Document