- Compare and contrast them in terms of how they relate to admissibility of scientific evidence in the courtroom.
In the Frye V. case, a test that did not had scientific recognition (systolic blood pressure) was presented by the defense of the suspect, but wasn’t taken into account by the jury because it was inadmissible, meanwhile what happened in the Merrel Dow case was that, the scientific researches made had to present that conclusions were reached after following recognized scientific methods.
- 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 the Zimmerman case (also known as the shooting of Trayvon Martin), Trayvon Benjamin Martin who was the son of Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, was fatally shot one day when he and his father were visiting his father’s fiancée and her son at her town home in Sanford, Florida by a young man called George Zimmerman. A Frye test was requested by Zimmermans attorney regarding the admissibility of the testimony of the audio analysts to determine if the methods used by them are generally accepted by the scientific community. The judge said in her ruling that, “There is no evidence to establish that their scientific techniques have been tested and found reliable.” Her ruling did not prevent the 9-1-1 calls from being played at trial.