Frye standard

Frye standard
Name	Frye standard
Court	D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided	1923
Citation	Frye v. United States
Jurisdiction	United States
Subject	Admissibility of scientific evidence

Frye standard is a legal doctrine governing the admissibility of expert scientific testimony in United States courts. Originating from a 1923 decision, the standard requires that scientific techniques be generally accepted by the relevant scientific community before being admitted. It has influenced federal and state evidentiary rules, appellate jurisprudence, and forensic practice.

Background and history

The Frye standard arose from the case of Frye v. United States decided by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1923, involving a blood pressure deception test used in a criminal trial in Washington, D.C.. The decision was later cited in litigation across jurisdictions including matters adjudicated in the Supreme Court of the United States and various state supreme courts such as New York Court of Appeals and California Supreme Court. Early 20th-century disputes over admissibility paralleled debates in scientific circles involving institutions like the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, and universities including Harvard University, Yale University, Columbia University, and Johns Hopkins University. Over ensuing decades, lower and appellate courts in jurisdictions such as Texas Supreme Court, Florida Supreme Court, Illinois Supreme Court, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and New Jersey Supreme Court referenced Frye in decisions concerning emerging techniques like blood typing, polygraph testing, and novel forensic methods presented at conferences of organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Legal formulation and criteria

Frye articulated a straightforward criterion: scientific evidence must have "general acceptance" in the relevant field to be admissible. Courts implementing Frye have looked to professional bodies including the American Chemical Society, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Statistical Association, and specialty associations like the Society for Neuroscience and International Association for Identification to assess consensus. Factors considered include publications in journals such as Nature, Science (journal), The Lancet, and Journal of Forensic Sciences, presentations at meetings of groups like the Royal Society and National Institutes of Health, and endorsements from academic centers including Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University. Case law additionally examined standards from governmental agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration when evaluating acceptance.

Application in U.S. courts

Under Frye, many state courts—examples include Maryland Court of Appeals, Ohio Supreme Court, Michigan Supreme Court, Georgia Supreme Court, and Arizona Supreme Court—maintained the general acceptance test well into the late 20th century. Trial judges in jurisdictions applying Frye have conducted voir dire-like hearings drawing testimony from experts affiliated with institutions such as Princeton University, University of California, Berkeley, University of Chicago, Duke University, and practitioners from agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration and Federal Aviation Administration. Some federal courts and circuits, including the Ninth Circuit, Second Circuit, and Tenth Circuit, grappled with Frye’s applicability alongside the Federal Rules of Evidence. States like New Jersey and Connecticut developed hybrid approaches, while jurisdictions such as California developed their own standards influenced by Frye through decisions from courts including the California Court of Appeal.

Comparison with Daubert and other standards

The later standard set by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the United States established a different federal approach emphasizing factors like falsifiability, peer review, error rates, and general acceptance as nonexclusive. Courts comparing Frye and Daubert examined rulings from circuits including the Third Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit, and disputes involving regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Other standards referenced in comparative jurisprudence include the Federal Rules of Evidence as interpreted in cases like General Electric Co. v. Joiner and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Impact on forensic science and expert testimony

Frye’s insistence on general acceptance shaped the development and validation of forensic techniques used by entities like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, state crime labs associated with universities such as University of Florida and Penn State University, and private laboratories supplying courts in jurisdictions including Nevada, Missouri, and Kansas. Fields affected include DNA profiling as practiced in laboratories linked to Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and National Forensic Science Technology Center, fingerprint analysis utilized by municipal police departments in Los Angeles Police Department and New York City Police Department, and emerging disciplines such as forensic podiatry, digital forensics conducted by firms and agencies including Microsoft forensic teams and National Security Agency analysts. Professional organizations like the International Association of Forensic Sciences and American Academy of Forensic Sciences responded with standards and accreditation programs.

Criticisms and controversies

Critics argued Frye can be conservative, slowing adoption of innovative methods and favoring established institutions such as Harvard Medical School, Mayo Clinic, and Johns Hopkins Hospital. Controversies arose in high-profile prosecutions in venues like Los Angeles County Superior Court, Manhattan Criminal Court, and Cook County Circuit Court where debate involved expert testimony from affiliates of Columbia University Irving Medical Center and UCLA School of Law. Scholars from Stanford Law School, Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and think tanks including the Brookings Institution and Hoover Institution have critiqued both the evidentiary conservatism and the practical challenges of assessing "general acceptance" in interdisciplinary areas such as computational biology, genomics research at Broad Institute, and neuroimaging studies at Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences.

Notable cases and precedents

Beyond the originating Frye v. United States decision, courts and tribunals referencing the standard include rulings in People v. Castro (California), decisions by State v. Johnson in various states, and appellate opinions from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and other federal circuits. Comparative precedents and influential opinions drew on scholarship and testimony from practitioners associated with American Bar Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, and academic commentary appearing in law reviews from Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, and Columbia Law Review.

Category:Evidence law