Describe the differences between the Frye and Daubert st…

Describe the differences between the Frye and Daubert standards, using scholarly sources from the Internet to go beyond the discussion in the text. Which standard does your state use? Reference: Use textbook Describe these various standards and consider the following: evidentiary standards and burdens of proof. Also describe the difference between these standards. How might these parameters affect the way you conduct a psychological evaluation in a forensic context? Reference: Use textbook

The Frye and Daubert standards are two different approaches that are used in determining the admissibility of scientific evidence in court. These standards involve the evaluation of scientific methods and expert testimony to ensure their reliability and relevance to the case at hand. The Frye standard originated from the 1923 case Frye v. United States and has been widely adopted by a majority of states, whereas the Daubert standard was established in the 1993 case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and is followed by a smaller number of states.

Under the Frye standard, scientific evidence will only be admitted if the scientific principle or technique used has gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. In other words, the evidence is considered reliable and valid if it is supported by the consensus of experts in the field. This standard focuses on the general acceptance of the scientific method, rather than the specific application of the method to the case.

On the other hand, the Daubert standard sets a more stringent criteria for the admissibility of scientific evidence. It requires that the scientific method and expert testimony be both reliable and relevant. In order to determine the reliability of the evidence, the court will evaluate factors such as whether the theory or technique has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review, and whether it has a known or potential rate of error. Additionally, the court will assess the relevance of the evidence, considering if it will assist the trier of fact (i.e., the judge or jury) in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue.

The Frye standard places more weight on the consensus of the scientific community, while the Daubert standard places more emphasis on the validity and reliability of the scientific method used in the case. This means that under the Frye standard, even if a technique or method is supported by only a few experts, it can still be admitted as evidence if it has gained general acceptance. On the other hand, the Daubert standard allows for more scrutiny of the scientific evidence and requires the court to act as a gatekeeper, ensuring that only reliable evidence is presented to the trier of fact.

In terms of evidentiary standards and burdens of proof, the Frye standard requires the party offering the scientific evidence to demonstrate that it is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. Once this is established, the burden shifts to the opposing party to challenge the evidence’s admissibility. In contrast, the Daubert standard places the burden on the trial court to assess the reliability and relevance of the evidence, considering factors such as the methodology used, the expert’s qualifications, and the peer review process.

The choice of standard used in a particular state can have implications on the way psychological evaluations are conducted in a forensic context. For example, in states that follow the Frye standard, expert witnesses may focus on demonstrating general acceptance and consensus within the scientific community to support the admissibility of their evidence. This may involve presenting studies, publications, and expert opinions that establish the widespread acceptance of the scientific method or technique used.

In contrast, states following the Daubert standard may require more rigorous scrutiny of the scientific evidence. Expert witnesses may have to provide additional documentation and testimony to demonstrate the reliability and relevance of their methods. This may involve presenting studies that have tested the technique, discussing potential rates of error, and explaining how the method has been peer-reviewed and validated in the field.

In conclusion, the Frye and Daubert standards represent two different approaches to evaluating the admissibility of scientific evidence in court. While the Frye standard places more weight on general acceptance within the scientific community, the Daubert standard requires a more stringent evaluation of the scientific method and expert testimony. The choice of standard used in a state can significantly impact the way psychological evaluations are conducted in a forensic context, with implications for the evidentiary standards and burdens of proof placed on expert witnesses.