In this study, I researched the difference between the Frye and Daubert standards. I learned a lot from doing this research. I also worked hard to improve this study by adding more details to my writing.
Compare and contrast them in terms of how they relate to admissibility of scientific evidence in the courtroom.
They both relate to the credibility of testimonies in court rooms, however the back stories are very different. In Frye v. United States, it was debated whether a deception test should be used in the trying of a man for second degree murder. Not enough scientific evidence backed up the legitimacy of this type of test and the evidence was not used. The court decided that without scientific evidence, the legitimacy of the deception test was questionable. Thus, the court decided that the evidence should not be used because it may not be accurate. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals was being sued based on the claims that their drugs caused birth defects. The plaintiffs attempted to use testimony that had not been generally accepted in the scientific community and had not been published in any journal. It was ruled that the testimony was not to be used because the evidence may not be accurate. Their is a high probability that the plaintiff’s evidence was biased. The research was done to prove their case, and with bias, truths are stretched and evidence is manipulated. In both of these cases, testimony was ruled inadmissible, due to the lack of scientific evidence to back it up. Without scientific evidence, no conclusions can be made for sure. Science can answer many questions that may come up in court. Without the science these questions, such as cause and effect and legitimacy, cannot be answered for sure. That is what the purpose of both Frye and Daubert were, to promote the use of real science in the courtroom. However, they have their differences from each other, the Frye case relates to how widely accepted scientific evidence is, and the Daubert case relates to making sure research being done for the court follows the scientific method. Frye looked to ensure that the science is not biased, and the science is accepted by the scientific community, and not debatable or easily called into question. Daubert looked to make sure that research done for the purpose of the courtroom followed the steps that any other science would follow. It made sure that the research was legitimate.
Find real criminal cases on which each of these cases were argued. Write a brief description of each that decided the case and the application of the Frye test or the Federal Rules of Evidence.
In Rock v. Arkansas, it was ruled that the hypnosis being used to refresh a testimony was inadmissible in the case against a woman who was being tried for manslaughter. This means that the women did not remember what exactly happened, and she was hypnotized, so she could remember what happened. The women claimed that the gun was defective after the use of a hypnotist. It was ruled that this evidence was inadmissible based on the fact that there was no scientific evidence to back it up. Although the Frye case was not cited, it is based on the principles that there was not enough scientific evidence to back up the legitimacy of the test. In Rider v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp, the plaintiff, Rider, was trying to prove that a drug caused strokes. Out of the four studies that the plaintiff did, one showed a possible correlation. However, the study was ruled inadmissible, because the study was not published in the scientific community, and did not follow the scientific method. The study was also said to be “speculative.” Speculation often goes hand in hand with bias. The plaintiff wanted to prove that the drug caused strokes, so they likely made speculations to prove their point. Their research did not follow the scientific method, and it was done solely for the court, which often leads to biases and inaccuracies