Comparing & Contrasting Daubert, Kumho, and Frye Standards

When diving into the complex world of expert witness testimony, one cannot avoid discussing the pivotal cases and standards that govern the admissibility of expert evidence in U.S. courts: Daubert, Kumho, and Frye. Each of these standards has played a significant role in shaping the landscape of how expert testimony is evaluated and admitted. Let’s take a closer look at the distinctions and similarities of each standard.

1. The Frye Standard: General Acceptance Test

Origin: Frye v. United States, 1923.

Overview: The Frye standard originated from a case involving the admissibility of a lie detector test. The court ruled that scientific evidence is admissible only if the methodology upon which it is based has gained “general acceptance” in the respective scientific community.

Strengths: 

– Simplicity: The test is straightforward, relying mainly on the consensus within a scientific community.

Limitations:

– Excludes potentially reliable evidence that hasn’t yet achieved “general acceptance.”

– Doesn’t account for the reliability of methodologies that are accepted but might still be flawed.

2. The Daubert Standard: Relevancy and Reliability Test

Origin: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1993.

Overview: This standard emerged from a case regarding the admissibility of expert evidence about the drug Bendectin’s potential to cause birth defects. The U.S. Supreme Court provided a non-exhaustive list of factors for federal judges to consider:

– Testability of the theory or technique.

– Peer review and publication.

– Known or potential error rate.

– Standards controlling the technique’s operation.

– General acceptance within a relevant scientific community.

Strengths:

– Flexibility: Offers a more comprehensive evaluation of evidence.

– Places responsibility on the judge to act as a gatekeeper, ensuring only relevant and reliable evidence reaches the jury.

Limitations:

– Requires judges to possess or acquire a certain degree of scientific understanding to make informed decisions.

– The multi-factor test can be more time-consuming and complicated.

3. The Kumho Standard: Extension of Daubert

Origin: Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 1999.

Overview: The U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the Daubert standard applies not just to scientific testimony but to all expert testimony, including that based on technical and other specialized knowledge.

Strengths:

– Universality: Makes the Daubert criteria applicable to a wider range of expert testimonies, ensuring consistency in evaluation.

Limitations:

– Can be seen as further complicating the judge’s role in evaluating expert testimony due to the expanded scope.

In Summary:

– Frye is all about “general acceptance” in the scientific community. 

– Daubert adds layers by emphasizing relevancy and reliability, giving judges a more active role as gatekeepers.

– Kumho broadens Daubert’s scope, applying it to all forms of expert testimony.

Understanding these standards is crucial for anyone involved in legal proceedings where expert testimony might play a role. Whether you are an attorney, paralegal, or just someone interested in the law, being aware of these differences can be invaluable in both presenting and challenging expert evidence in court.

---

Further reading:

Federal Rule 702, Daubert, Impacts Expert Witness Testimony

---

About Consolidated Consultants

Since 1995, Consolidated Consultants, an expert witness referral company, provides attorneys with the full CV of the expert witnesses listed.  In order to begin the Search for the right expert, simply visit our site at FreeReferral.com and use keywords. Once you identify the expert, look for the floating Request This Expert button and fill out the form.

Alternatively, the attorney can just Request An Expert and let us quickly find the right expert for you.

For the hard to find experts, call us at 800.683-9847 or +1619.422-5559.

Experts that want to be listed with us, only need to fill out the Become An Expert form.