This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading it. Laws, regulations, official guidance, and related information vary by jurisdiction, change frequently, and may have changed or become outdated since the publication date. Always verify current information with authoritative sources and consult a qualified professional about your specific circumstances. The author and publisher assume no liability for actions taken based on this information.
- What the Frye standard means
- The test began with an early deception examination
- Daubert displaced Frye in federal trials
- Current Federal Rule of Evidence 702
- Kumho Tire extended federal gatekeeping
- Joiner addressed review and analytical gaps
- Frye and Daubert are not interchangeable
- State courts require a separate check
- FAQ
- Is Frye still the federal standard?
- Does Daubert ignore general acceptance?
- Does Daubert apply only to scientists?
- What does a Frye inquiry focus on?
- Sources
Key Facts
- Historical federal context: The 1923 Frye decision required a scientific principle or discovery to have gained general acceptance in its particular field.
- Federal level: The Supreme Court held in 1993 that the Federal Rules of Evidence displaced Frye in federal trials.
- Federal level: General acceptance can remain relevant under Daubert, but it is not an absolute federal prerequisite.
- Federal level: Current Rule 702 requires the proponent to demonstrate helpfulness, a sufficient factual basis, reliable methods, and reliable application.
- Federal level: The federal gatekeeping obligation applies to scientific, technical, and other specialized expert testimony.
- State-law boundary: Some states continue to use Frye, but each state’s current law must be checked separately.
What the Frye standard means
The Frye standard is a test for the admissibility of evidence based on scientific expertise. It asks whether the underlying scientific principle or method has gained general acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs.
The inquiry asks whether the scientific principle or method has gained general acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs.
The test began with an early deception examination
The 1923 Frye decision involved results from a systolic blood-pressure deception test, an early predecessor of the polygraph. The appellate court concluded that the technique had not gained enough standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities.
The decision’s brief formulation became an influential general-acceptance test for novel scientific evidence. Its historical importance does not make it the current rule in every American court.
Daubert displaced Frye in federal trials
In 1993, the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision held that the Federal Rules of Evidence superseded Frye. The Court explained that general acceptance does not appear in Rule 702 as an absolute condition of admissibility.
Daubert did not remove judicial screening. It assigned federal trial judges responsibility for ensuring that scientific expert testimony is relevant and reliable.
The Court identified considerations that may bear on the inquiry, including testing, peer review and publication, known or potential error rate, standards controlling a technique, and general acceptance. The inquiry is flexible rather than a fixed checklist.
Current Federal Rule of Evidence 702
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs testimony by expert witnesses in federal court. The proponent must demonstrate that specialized knowledge will help the factfinder, the testimony rests on sufficient facts or data, the principles and methods are reliable, and the expert reliably applied them to the case facts.
These requirements make the current federal inquiry broader than a single question about community acceptance. A widely accepted method can still fail another Rule 702 requirement, while a newer method is not excluded solely because it lacks universal acceptance.
Kumho Tire extended federal gatekeeping
The Supreme Court’s Kumho Tire decision held that Daubert’s gatekeeping obligation applies to all expert testimony governed by Rule 702. It is not limited to testimony labeled scientific.
The relevant reliability considerations depend on the kind of expertise and the circumstances of the case. A factor useful for laboratory science may not fit experience-based technical testimony in the same way.
Joiner addressed review and analytical gaps
In the Supreme Court’s Joiner decision, the Court held that appellate review of an expert-evidence ruling uses the abuse-of-discretion standard. It also explained that a court need not admit an opinion connected to underlying data only by the expert’s assertion when the analytical gap is too great.
Joiner’s analytical-gap discussion focuses on whether the expert’s conclusion follows reliably from the underlying data.
Frye and Daubert are not interchangeable
- Frye: centers on general acceptance in the relevant field.
- Federal Rule 702 and Daubert: use a flexible reliability-and-relevance gatekeeping inquiry.
- Overlap: general acceptance may still inform federal reliability analysis, but it is not controlling by itself.
State courts require a separate check
Federal Daubert doctrine does not dictate the expert-evidence standard for every state court. Cornell’s legal reference notes that some states retain Frye while many others have moved to Daubert or another formulation.
Scope note: This article does not identify or prove the current rule of any particular state.
FAQ
Is Frye still the federal standard?
No. Daubert held that Frye was displaced in federal trials by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Does Daubert ignore general acceptance?
No. General acceptance may be considered, but it is not an absolute prerequisite under the federal rule.
Does Daubert apply only to scientists?
No. Kumho Tire extended the gatekeeping obligation to technical and other specialized expert testimony governed by Rule 702.
What does a Frye inquiry focus on?
Frye focuses on general acceptance of the underlying principle or method in the relevant field.
