Law, Precedents, Court Rules, Civil & Criminal Procedure

Question 1

Frye v. U.S. (1923) *

Answer 1

Evidence that is not accepted by the scientific community is also NOT accepted in a federal criminal trial

(General Acceptance Test)

Question 2

Jenkins v. U.S. (1961) *

Answer 2

Psychologists DO have specialized knowledge relevant to the diagnosis of insanity and should be permitted to testify on such matters (although ultimately is the domain of the trial judge)

Question 3

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) *

Answer 3

The standard set by Frye is NOT the appropriate standard (any more) for admitting scientific evidence into federal court

1. Are the methods scientifically valid? 2. Has the theory been subject to peer review and publication? 3. Has the theory been tested? 4. What’s the known potential error rate? 5. Are there standards that relate to the technique? 6. Is there wide-spread acceptance in the scientific community?

Question 4

General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997) *

Answer 4

An appellate court SHOULD use the “abuse of discretion” standard in reviewing a district/trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony—that is, the judgments of lower courts should not be reversed unless they are “manifestly erroneous.”

Question 5

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) *

Answer 5

Daubert criteria DOES apple to nonscientific testimony (all expert testimony, “scientific, technical, and other specialized knowledge”)