LANDMARK CASES IN FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY:

Expert Witness Testimony

Frye was on trial for murder charges, and presented an expert witness to testify about the results of a “deception test” (an early lie-detector), which aimed to detect lies via rises in systolic blood pressure. This testimony was found inadmissible by the judge.

On appeal, the court found that the “deception test” lacked sufficient general acceptance in the scientific community, upholding the judge’s decision to exclude.

Frye test for admissibility of scientific expert testimony: is the expert testimony generally accepted by the scientific community?
Note: Later superseded in federal cases by Federal Rules of Evidence 702, still used in some states.

Daubert was a child exposed in-utero to an anti-emetic drug produced by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. A lawsuit was filed alleging that the drug caused birth defects.
Plaintiff experts presented evidence of a link between the drug and birth defects based on reanalysis of studies, which the defense argued was unreliable and did not meet scientific standards for admissibility under Frye. The evidence was excluded.
US Supreme Court overturned Frye, finding the standard for admissibility of scientific evidence had been superseded by Federal Rules of Evidence 702.
FRE 702 requires scientific evidence to rest on a reliable foundation and be of relevance to the issue at hand. A list of guidelines for admissibility was provided.

The Frye test for admissibility of scientific evidence in federal cases was superseded by Federal Rules of Evidence 702, which requires that such evidence rest on a reliable foundation and be of relevance to the issue at hand.
Guidelines for Admissibility:
- Can, or has, the expert’s technique been tested?
- Is the technique subject to peer review or publication?
- What is the technique’s known or potential error rate?
- Is the technique scientifically valid?
- Are there standards for the technique?
- Is the technique generally accepted in the relevant scientific community?

Carmichael was injured in a car accident involving the blowout of a tire produced by Kumho Tire. Carmichael sued Kumho Tire, arguing their product design was defective.
Carmichael attempted to introduce expert testimony from a tire expert, which Kumho challenged under Daubert as the expertise was based on experience rather than scientific method or principles.
US Supreme Court ruled that the Daubert standard applies to all expert testimony, not just scientific evidence.

The Daubert standard for admissibility applies to all expert testimony, not just scientific evidence.