The case of Frye v. United States (1923) is one of the significant events affecting the possibility of expert witness testimony in legal matters. This case not only decided the accused’s future, but establish methodologies determining the admissibility of scientific evidence. This facilitated the emergence of the “Frye Standard” and was essential in developing the expert testimony standards of today.
Case Background
The case against Frye occurred in 1920 when he was charged with second-degree murder. To bolster his alibi, Frye’s defense counsel wished to adduce evidence regarding a ‘systolic blood pressure deception test.’ This is a veteran version of what might be termed a modern-day polygraph or lie-detector examination. The accused contended that this ‘test’ was exculpatory because it showed Frye’s statements were truthful when he denied committing the crime.
The Role of Expert Testimony
During the second phase, the court debated whether the scientific evidence could be admitted. The defense brought a psychotherapist who had tested Frye and was ready to testify that Frye’s blood pressure readings indicated his truthfulness. The prosecution discredited this evidence, pointing out that scientists and courts had not accepted this test as a valid means of detecting lies.
The Court’s Decision
In the end, the court did not evaluate the witnesses’ opinions and refused to consider the expert’s testimony. The opinion subject in court was not sufficiently established in a particular area. The Frye ruling established that expert opinion is admissible only if the method has credibility within its scientific field. This became known as the Frye Standard, which persisted in the admissibility of scientific expert testimony standards in expert opinion for several decades.
Impact on the Legal System
The impact of the Frye decision has not faded with time. It pointed out the importance of thoroughly investigating the validity of any scientific method before it is presented in court as evidence. The Frye Standard emerged as the most crucial criterion for assessing expert opinion. It provided a foundation for the debates on scientific evidence, which was to follow in high-profile criminal cases.
The impact of Frye v. United States goes beyond the original verdict. Although Frye was convicted, courts have applied its rules for over a century. Courts still cite this case when deciding whether to admit new or evolving scientific procedures as evidence.
The Shift in Expert Testimony Standards
In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the principles established by Frye in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This introduced a more flexible standard for the admissibility of expert testimony. The Daubert standard emphasized that judges should act as “gatekeepers” to evaluate the reliability and relevance of expert testimony using a broader set of criteria. This could include peer review, error rates, and general scientific acceptance.
Thus, the Frye v. United States case is significant not for its outcome but its influence on the evolution of expert witness testimony in modern jurisprudence.
Strengthen your case with credible expertise.
The Frye case reminds us that courts demand reliable, well-prepared expert testimony. At Homestead, we help attorneys and experts navigate admissibility and expert testimony standards with confidence.
Contact us today to discuss your expert witness needs.
