Criminology Term: Frye Standard
The Frye standard is a legal doctrine that perplexes even the most seasoned of attorneys. It's an evidentiary rule used in some parts of the United States to assess whether expert testimony is admissible in court.
This standard requires that the scientific principles or methods used by the expert witness must be generally accepted by the relevant scientific community.
The Frye standard originated from a 1923 case, Frye v. United States, where the court ruled that scientific test results must be widely accepted as reliable within the relevant scientific community to be presented as evidence in court. However, it was later replaced in some jurisdictions by the more flexible Daubert standard in the 1990s.
The Frye standard demands that the party seeking to admit expert testimony must show that the scientific principles or methods used by the expert are widely accepted within the relevant field.
This can be accomplished through expert witness testimony, scientific literature, and other evidence that demonstrates the widespread acceptance of the principles or methods within the scientific community.
While the Frye standard is still employed in some U.S. jurisdictions, the Daubert standard has been embraced by others. The Daubert standard permits judges to adopt a more adaptable approach to the admissibility of expert testimony, focusing on the reliability and relevance of the testimony rather than the general acceptance of the underlying scientific principles or methods.
The Frye standard is a critical legal principle in criminology and is one of several methods used to determine whether expert testimony is admissible in court.
Its application has evolved over time, and its continued use is a matter of heated debate and dispute among legal and scientific experts.
