In the Frye v. United States case, the defendant offered a systolic blood pressure deception test as evidence (or lie detection test). The test showed that the defendant was telling the truth when denying his guilt. Therefore, had this test been accepted, the court would have found the defendant innocent. However, the systolic blood pressure test was found to be experimental science and not fully accepted by the scientific community. As a result of this case, the Frye test was established which set standards for admitting new scientific methods as admissible evidence. These standards include general acceptance in the specific field of which it pertains.
In the Daubert v. Merrell Dow case, a scientific testimony concluded from research was offered as proof that a certain drug caused birth defects. The court determined that because the research was not conducted independently from the case and it was not published and reviewed by peers, it was not a strong theory to be admissible evidence. As a result of this case, Federal Rule 702 was created which stated that in order to have scientific testimony be admissible evidence, the theory must be accepted in general by the scientific community, it has to have been published and peer reviewed, it must be able to be tested, and it has to have a reasonably small error rate. Both of these cases established law principles that describe standards for admissible evidence. They create a boundary between scientific conjecture and acceptable, fact based theories and tests.
In Snizavich v. Rohm and Haas Co., the plaintiff claimed that his brain cancer was caused by the toxic chemicals that he was exposed to at a job for Rohm and Haas Co.. The plaintiff tried to use an expert’s testimony to prove his case, but the court found that the expert’s claim was not generally accepted by the scientific community and therefore did not pass the Frye test.
In Jacoby v. Rite Aid Corporation, the plaintiff claimed that he suffered a neurological injury from the use of a certain denture cream from Rite Aid Corporation. The plaintiff used research done by experts however, the court decided the experts’ conclusion was not based on a sturdy base of fact. This resulted in the work done by the experts not being considered admissible evidence because it did not meet the Federal Rule of Evidence set forth by the Daubert case.
Citations:
Nice read Lucas! (Great name!) I had never known about Federal Rule 702. It was explained very nicely! I would throw in a few paragraph breaks when you get a chance! Nice first post to the digital portfolio!!