Admissibility of Expert Witness Testimony

Introduction

The use of expert witnesses has become a common feature in modern-day court cases. In most trials, expert witnesses are called upon to provide specialized knowledge or insights to aid the courts in making informed decisions. However, not all expert witness testimonies are treated equally, and the courts have the responsibility to determine the reliability and admissibility of such testimony. Over time, different tests have been developed to evaluate the admissibility of expert witness testimony in courtrooms. The two most commonly used tests are the Daubert standard and the Frye test. This paper seeks to compare and contrast these two tests, examining their origins, strengths, and limitations and evaluating their effectiveness in ensuring the admission of reliable expert witness testimony in court.

Frye test or the general acceptance test.

The Frye test is one of the tests used to determine the admissibility of expert witness testimony by the courts. The Frye test, also known as the general acceptance test, originated from the Frye vs. United States case dated 1923 in Washington DC. The Frye test seeks to determine whether the results generated by the accepted techniques, when executed appropriately, are considered dependable and accepted by the concerned scientific community (Youngs & Canter, 2013).in 1923, the case brought about numerous discussions over the credibility of polygraph test results as the basis of evidence in court. The court ruled that polygraph testing was too inconsistent and not entirely trustworthy and thus not widely accepted in the scientific community. The court further stated that before polygraph tests could be legally used as scientific evidence in court, they must have widespread acceptance. This case is considered a landmark case, and it is what gave the Frye standard its name and basis.

When applied to expert testimony, professionals in a particular scientific field must explain and support the scientific methods used in submitting the evidence. In the event that his or her credentials are challenged during cross-examination or the expert’s explanations are seen as substantial, the court could deem the evidence inadmissible. In order for expert testimony to be acceptable, it must be based on scientific evidence that is capable of being proven or demonstrated rather than relying solely on experimental evidence. The Frye standard provides a way to guarantee the trustworthiness of scientific evidence by allowing experts with the highest qualifications to determine the overall validity of a scientific method (Lyons, 2019). The General acceptance test is used whenever new or unclear scientific methods are introduced as evidence in court. This test saves time by avoiding lengthy hearings on the reliability of new techniques. Its consistent method for evaluating the general validity of scientific evidence promotes uniformity.

However, some issues arose from the Frye test. It should have answered the following questions. One is, what level of familiarity with the disputed technique is necessary for a scientist’s opinions to be considered relevant? Two is, what degree of acceptance constitutes general acceptance? How does the court establish the relevant scientific community when dealing with a new theory or technique that spans multiple science fields? Some legal experts have criticized the Frye test as being susceptible to inconsistent application by the courts and even manipulation through redefinition of its criteria. The complaint most commonly voiced was that the “general acceptance” test was too rigid and inflexible, excluding evidence that should be admitted as reliable and relevant.

Daubert test

The term “Daubert Standard” originated in 1993 from a legal case called Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. It went on to develop over three cases which are famously known as the Daubert trilogy. The fisrt case, Daubert. V Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals established that the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) Rule 702 did not require the Frye “general acceptance” test to determine the admissibility of expert testimony in science but instead incorporated a more adaptable standard of reliability. Another case, General Electric Co. v. Joiner, determined that a judge can exclude expert testimony if there are inconsistencies between the expert’s evidence and their final opinion. Finally, Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael decided that the gatekeeping function described in Dubert, which refers to the judge’s duty to screen expert testimony for reliability, applies to all types of expert testimony, even those that are not related to science. Many states in the United States did away with the Frye test and adopted the Daubert test.

From the Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case, the court provided a criterion to be applied when assessing and determining the admissibility of scientific evidence. The four factors to consider are: if the theory can undergo testing or be proven false, whether it has been reviewed and published by peers, the potential for errors, and whether there are standards in place to control the operations of the techniques. Generally, the Daubert test expanded the authority of trial courts to allow scientific expert testimony based on solid principles relevant to the case, despite the evidence being novel or contentious (MSBA, 2020). The Daubert test, however, is not void of criticism. According to some critics, Daubert’s case did not achieve its intended goal of promoting a more lenient approach towards admitting expert witness evidence. Instead, they argue that Daubert actually established a more vigorous standard for evaluating the admissibility of evidence.

Conclusion

The admissibility of expert witness testimony is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of various factors. Courts have developed different tests to evaluate the reliability and relevance of such evidence, including the Frye and the Daubert standards. While each test has its own strengths and limitations, they all aim to ensure that expert testimony meets specific criteria before it can be presented to the trier of fact. Ultimately, the choice of which test to apply depends on the jurisdiction and the nature of the case at hand. By understanding the similarities and differences between these tests, attorneys and experts can better prepare themselves for the challenge of presenting and evaluating expert witness testimony.

Reference

MSBA. (2020). Daubert, Frye-Reed, and Racial Justice. MSBA Case Note. https://www.msba.org/daubert-frye-reed-and-racial-justice/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20Daubert%20analysis%2C%20according%20to,.%E2%80%9D%20Rochkind%2C%20Slip%20Op.