Frye vs. Daubert (Case Study Sample)

Frye vs. Daubert
Name:
Institution:
Introduction
In New York, the standard used in deciding whether to admit any testimony from experts is the Frye standard. In the cases where the federal judge is required to apply the FRE 702 before he/she can admit any evidence then a party in the court system of New York Should challenge the evidence given by the expert on the basis of Frye standards. So as to mount any such challenges, the party can chose any of three options. The first option is to move for a summary of the judgment in the case that the testimony given by the expert is essential to the case of the other party that if the proffered evidence does not meet the Frye standards, his/her case will defiantly fall if such evidence is not presented. The next option is to move in limine to request for a determination as to whether the evidence is admissible if it fails to satisfy the Frye test. Lastly, a party can request for a voir dire examination to the expert during the trial (Shultz, 2005).
Explanation of the Court Rulings used in New York
The case of Parker v. Mobile Oil Corporation is one of the recent cases where the court of appeal visited the Frye standards. In this case, the plaintiff sought to introduce the testimony of an expert with the aim of linking the exposure to benzene for 17 years at the workplace to him getting leukemia. The defendant was seeking to make it impossible for the plaintiff to use since they argued that the plaintiff was not able to prove the actual he was exposed to benzene. In this case, the court had to note that the Frye standard was the one applicable in New York to determine whether the evidence would be admissible in a court of law, amid suggestions from some quarters to use the Daubert standards. The statement of the court was that in Parker, there could be no prove of novel methodology for which the court would be required to determine as to whether there would be general acceptance. For this reason, the inquiry was keener on determining whether the opinions of the experts were based on a strong foundation, rather than whether his opinions would be admissible taking into considerations the Frye standards.
In the case of People v. Wesley in the year 1994, the court to of law concluded that the DNA evidence produced before it was admissible under the Frye standards since it was generally accepted and referred to as reliable by the by the scientific community that was relevant. Another case was the case of People v. Wernick in the year 1996, here, the court of appeal made a reaffirmation of the necessity of a Frye hearing by stating that in all the instances where any party is seeking to present novel scientific, psychiatric or evidence based on medical results the Frye test may be raised in the motion for the summary of the judgment. In another case, Heckstell v. Pincus, a patient died after he smoked a cessation drug and his estates sought to introduce into the case some testimony which intended to establish a link between this specific drug and the death of the victim. The trial court had to grant the motion of the defendant for summary judgment since the plaintiff’s expert gave opinions that were termed as conclusory and they relied on the novel theory of causation which is not satisfactory to the Frye rule the party that is seeking to introduce the testimony of an expert does bear the burden of establishing general acceptance in line with Frye (Cwik, et. Al., 2006).
Overview of how scientific methodology is introduced to New York
Generally, scientific evidence is the evidence that is produced in a court of law during trial. This evidence is usually based on the knowledge that is developed by the use of some scientific method. Such evidence should be based on the standards that are hypothesized, tested and generally accepted in the scientific community in question. This could also mean that the standards and theories on which this evidence is based on are published on peer reviewed journals (Martin, et. al., 2003).
Mostly, forensic evidence is referred to as scientific evidence. This is because the methods through which these conclusions are made to come up with the evidence are usually put of the knowledge of most juries. However, this is not the only prove that the scientific evidence can be admissible in a court of law. There are several steps that ought to be taken so as to determine whether the evidence can be termed as factual. For this reason, the theory on which the scientific evidence is based should first be established as the truth by the scientific community that is relevant and accepted before then it can be considered to be used in a trial. For example, some of the long used and accepted scientific evidences are the use of figure print matching and radars or speed guns to tell the speed of motor vehicles (Cwik, ET. Al., 2006)
In a trial, in one party seeks to bring in evidence that is based on principles that have not yet been proven by the scientific community, the court of law will then have to order for a mini trial which will be used to determine the validity of the theory that was used to come up with the scientific evidence (Carper & McKinsey, 2012). A good example is the DNA evidence that had to pass through several mini trials when it was being introduced as evidence in cases. However, this has of late been generally recognized as valid to be used as evidence in courts of law.
A mini trial is a way of solving disputes in a court of law (Carper & McK...