The Frye Standard and the Daubert Standard - Term Paper Example

RUNNING HEAD: FYRE AND DAUBERT STANDARDS Comparing and Contrasting the Fyre and Daubert Standards Comparing and Contrasting the Fyre and Daubert Standards Introduction The Frye standard, [Frye vs. United States (293 F. 1013 (DC Cir 1923)] and the Daubert standard [Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (509 U.S. 579 (1993) cases touched on the courts view of science as the issues surrounding both cases were on the basis of scientific evidence. While Daubert has outdone Fyre, Daubert’s standard does not extensively vary with the issues surrounding Fyre Standard. While stress put on review and further research has considerably dwindled, the result can never change. Subsequently, the Daubert standard is in some instances called “Fyre in drag.” Problems have come up with this standard, due to the fact that it has led to eyebrows being raised regarding the vitality of the standard and on its flexibility to be able to adjust to different situations and fresh and new scientific matters, where "general" or "widespread" approval is not gathered. Conversely, whether fresh or new, supposedly scientific matters are issues of significance to the court have been quizzed. As a substitute to this standard, many law courts apply Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as the basis for professional testimony and scientific evidence. In my essay I will provide an explanation of how courts view science and how that view has changed over the last century. I will make also make a prediction of future evidentiary issues for forensic evidence and explain whether forensic evidence in criminal investigations and trials will increase or decrease over the next two decades.  Facts surrounding the Cases Facts of Daubert standard [Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (509 U.S. 579 (1993) Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller were born with abnormal birth problems that relate to the physicality of the body. Both them together with their real parents had decided to take legal action against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc, which is a branch of Dow Chemical Company, which is solely situated in some state court in the state of California in the United states of America, They believed that a specific drug in the name of Bendectin had caused the birth abnormalities. Merrell Dow thus transferred the case to federal court, and then made the move for Summary judgment owing to the fact that their legal committee submitted records indicating that no published scientific research and experimentation pointed out a connection between Bendectin and birth abnormalities. Daubert and Schuller, forwarded their professional evidence formulated by themselves which postulated that Bendectin might cause abnormalities resulting from the birth process. Facts for Frye standard, [Frye vs. United States (293 F. 1013 (DC Cir 1923)] In the case in the year 1923, Frye vs united states, 293 F1013(D.C Cir 1923), the D.C Circuit, stated that evidence would in this way be submitted to court if the item from which the deduction is extracted from is confirmed to have acquired public acknowledgement in that specific area in which it originates. Fyre looked into a systolic blood pressure test for deception. In the year dating 1923, this experiment was not generally acknowledged among researchers and hence the Fyre court decided that it could not a basis of use in the court of justice. As years passed by, scientists argued and really debated about the exact objective and the use and implication of the Fyre test. Furthermore, the plaintiffs positively won a debate that after Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, Fyre was not in the position of being used as the standard measure forwarding research results in hearings in the federal court. It thus had to be that the Supreme Court had to accept and also it had already decided that where common law rules were ambiguous with the provisions of the rules, the enforcement of the law had the impact of surpassing the common law. Fyre was definitely a portion of the federal common law of the rules which did not have any suggestion that the Congress intention to retain the Fyre rule, and thus the Court objected to Fyre being the rule. Issues Surrounding Both Cases There were several issues surrounding the Daubert standard [Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (509 U.S. 579 (1993). Firstly, Daubert and schuller’s evidence was reference from ‘in vitro’ and ‘in vivo’ animal research, pharmacological studies, and reviews of other published researches, and also these methodologies that had not yet been widely recognized within the scientific committee. The district court therefore had to award the summarily decision for Merrel Dow, and Daubert and Schuller had to make an appeal to the ninth circuit. Nevertheless, the ninth circuit discovered that the district court had rightly awarded the summary judgment owing to the fact that the plaintiff’s evidence had nonetheless been accepted as a suitable method by researchers who had the chance to look into and ascertain the techniques used by those specific researchers. Moreover, the ninth circuit was cynical of the essence that the evidence from the plaintiff looked as if it was cooked up in accordance waiting for the case process. It therefore appeared that the ninth circuit did not have enough faith if the plaintiff could ascertain at a hearing that the Bendectin had, in proof, resulted to those birth abnormalities about which they had forwarded their case. Thus, the plaintiffs requested the Supreme Court to scrutinize the ninth circuit’s decision, and it opted and accepted to inquire to it. There were also issues surrounding the Frye standard, [Frye vs. United States (293 F. 1013 (DC Cir 1923)].Firstly, Frye vs United States 293 F 1013 D.C Cir 1923 was a case talking and debating about case of admissions of polygraph test as evidence. The Fyre court held that the testimony forwarded by experts must be based on techniques of science that are mostly relevant and acknowledged. Additionally, if any principle from science or research showed the point between the experiments and show ways is really hard to determine. In essence, somewhere in this zone of twilight, the force of evidence of this principle must be acknowledged, and while the courts will nevertheless travel miles in admitting the testimony originating from experiments extracted from a known principle of science or research, the item from which the extraction is made must be well worded to have acquired wide acknowledgement in that specific area in which it has its origin. Furthermore, in the various many and not all related to jurisdictions bonds, the Fyre measure has been surpassed by the Daubert standards which clearly these states following the Fyre measure are inclusive namely Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennyslvania, and Washington among many others. Holding of the Cases Holdings of the Daubert standard [Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (509 U.S. 579 (1993) was the fact that rule 702 did not really admit of giving a testimony that requires expertise and depended on wide acknowledgement, and there was no record showing that Congress had the intention to infuse a wide acknowledgement standard into the so called rule 702. In this case, there was provision of rules and their general infusion of a certain rule on the testifying that does not in any way talk about the wide acknowledgement. Also the assumption that these rules really incorporated Fyre is undoubting. Fyre made general and wide acknowledgement the unique process and a way of accepting testimony made by experts. In essence, this way should not in any way be applicable to the federal hearings. Holdings of the Frye standard, [Frye vs. United States (293 F. 1013 (DC Cir 1923)] was the fact that the Fyre court held that the testimony forwarded by experts must be based on techniques of science that are mostly relevant and acknowledged. Additionally, if any principle from science or research showed the point between the experiments, this would have proved had to determine. In essence, somewhere in this zone of twilight, the force of evidence of this principle must be acknowledged, and while the courts will nevertheless travel miles in admitting the testimony originating from experiments extracted from a known principle of science or research, the item from which the extraction is made must be well worded to have acquired wide acknowledgement in that specific area in which it has its origin. Evidentiary Standards used in both Cases  The three most important provisions of the Rules talked in both cases concern of ways of admitting testimony from experts in the court scenario. To start with, the scientific knowledge, this hence means that the testimony must be in the most scientific way, and must also be based on knowledge. Nonetheless, science does not necessarily point to have an understanding of anything with specificity, making science to present a way of explaining and describing theory about the globe that are of essence to future and intense testing and fine tuning. The scientific knowledge accredited by rule 702 had to be reached at by this scientific approach. Moreover, the scientific knowledge must really help the fact trier in grasping the evidence given or inquiring a fact in context of the case. The fact trier is thereby either a judge or even a jury, but also other fact tries may dwell within the context of the federal rules of evidence, to be really of assistance to the fact trier in the court hearings, and hence there must be a solid and true scientific linkage to the insight as a requirement to the process of admission. For example, even if it is within the bounds of scientific knowledge, knowing or finding out whether the moon is seen as full on a certain night does not correctly aid the fact trier in ascertaining whether a person was in his right mind when he or she did a certain ill or action. In other words, technicality, science and other various particular information will help the fact tries to grasp the evidence or in the end postulate a fact in contention, a witness who may be termed to have an expertise qualification of knowledge, prowess, educational training, may opt to testify in the manner of an opinion or other ways he or she could be of assistance. Another vital point, is the fact that the rules did provide that the judge would make the best decision relating to specific scientific knowledge. This would definitely aid the fact trier in the way in context of rule 702. This includes a pre analysis of the thinking or methodology in the testimony is true according to science and if that thinking or methodology can be correctly be applicable in the facts in this context. This pre analysis can show if whether something had been experimented on, whether a certain idea has been put to scientific peer analysis or published in the scientific journals, the amount and rate of mistakes involved in this method, and moreover, the wide acknowledgement, among many other various things. It relies and is based on the methodology and guidelines, and not necessarily the inferences that result from it. The court stated that the rule 702 new standards had its origin in the judiciary process and had the intention to be unique and different from the quest for truth in reference to science. Scientific inferences are based on continuous revising. On the other hand, law, seeks to solve misconceptions in the end and in a fast manner. The scientific research is postulated by wide ways and format of a string of hypothetical formulations, and for those that are not true will in the end be indicated to be just like that, and that in itself it is hence formulated. Rule 702 had the intension to solve legal conflicts and therefore had to have an interpretation in relation to other rules of evidence and with other lawful means of finishing and concluding those conflicts. Analysis and cross examining within the process is sufficient to help lawful decision creators to reach at best ends to conflicts. We know that, in real practice, a role which involves gatekeeping for the judge, even if it is not rigid, ot able to avoid it on certain times will block the jury having the knowledge of original inquiries and creativity. That, nonetheless, is the equilibrium that is struck by Rules of Evidence constructed not for the intensive quest for intuitive grasping but for the specialized solution of legal conflicts After Daubert, it was anticipated that the analysis of scientific evidence based on these standards would stop. However, courts have stringently put into place the measures in Daubert, and it has been widely of a success in removing junk science or pseudoscience as well as new or scientific methods that the decision might have been anticipated to fit the admission. Opinions thus used in the court could be expanded. The final changes in Daubert do not have to be met for the evidence to be sufficiently admissible. It is thus vital that only the minority of the experimental tests not to be accorded the needed compliance. The law principle that was in Daubert was widened in kumho tire co vs Carmichael, where the evidence in query was from a technical guy and not from a expertise. The technical guy was supposed to give a testimony that the only relevant cause of a tire burst must have been a defect generating from the manufacturing process, as he could not show any other vital cause. The court of appeal had submitted and judged that the evidence on assuming that Daubert did not at all give reference to evidence of technicality but only scientific evidence. The supreme court changed that ideology, quoting that the measure in Daubert could be applicable to the technical evidence, and that in this scenario, the evidence of the suggested expert was not really enough and of meaning. Even if it being not a matter of the law, correcting, discussing, and reviews on this issue from time and periods raised eyebrows to attorneys and other stakeholders among whom the topic of this case has been of concern way. Michael H Gottesman, Jason Daubert’s lawyer reports that Daubert and his related family do not in any way affect the pronunciation in French, which in this context would be pronounced same to ‘dough-bear’. Rather, they pronounce their family name in the similar way as ‘dow-butt’. The most known use of the French pronunciation may have originated from Gottesman blocking it from correcting the decisions during oral debating before the Supreme Court. Conclusion Conclusively, although Daubert has surpassed Fyre, Daubert’s standard does not considerably differ with that of Fyre. Whereas the emphases put on inquiry has drastically reduced, the result can never changes. Consequently, the Daubert standard is in some instances called “Fyre in drag.” Trouble in the use of this standard has led to a lot of questions being asked on the vitality of the standard and on its flexibility to be able to adjust to different situations and fresh and new scientific matters, where "general" or "widespread" approval is not gathered. Conversely, whether fresh or new, supposedly scientific matters are issues of significance to the court have been quizzed. As a substitute to this standard, many law courts apply Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as the basis for professional testimony and scientific evidence. References Berger, M. (2000). "The Supreme Courts Trilogy on the Admissibility of Expert Evidence," Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Washington D.C.: Federal Judicial Center. Berger, Margaret A. (2005). "What Has a Decade of Daubert Wrought" (PDF).American Journal of Public Health 95(S1): S59–65.  Dixon, L. & Gill, B. (2002). Changes in the Standards for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases Since the Daubert Decision. Santa Monica: CA: RAND. Giannelli, P. (1994). "Daubert: Interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence." Cardoza Law Review 15: 1999-2026. Golan, T. (2004). Laws of Men and Laws of Nature: The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in England and America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. Huber, P. (1993). Galileos Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. NY: Basic Books. Read More