Frye/Daubert Analysis

Frye/Daubert Analysis

In 1993 the Court set forth a new standard for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence in the federal courts of the United States. Case that was decided was Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. The main focus of the Daubert opinion was to encourage courts to evaluate scientific evidence based on the methodology used and not the conclusions derived by the researcher (Groscup, 2002). Scientific and technical advances are being made daily; therefore, keeping up to date on all, or even most, of these advancements is nearly impossible. All experts’ testimony dating back to 1923 was obtained off the bases of Frye v United States. Does the a state’s adoption if a Daubert or Frye test make any difference in the way scientific evidence is handled in practice? The state of Maryland follows Frye. An example of a trial is the State of Maryland v Bryan Rose and the Reed vs State of Maryland.

Maryland’s rule on testimony by experts reads as follows: Expert testimony may be admitted, in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if the court determines that the testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. In making that determination, the court shall determine (1) whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, (2) the appropriateness of the expert testimony on the particular subject, and (3) whether a sufficient factual basis exists to support the expert testimony (Kaufman, 2006). Maryland adopted the Frye test in Reed vs State.

In September 1974, a woman was raped, late at night, outside her home in Montgomery County, Maryland. She immediately entered a hospital for treatment and reported the incident to the police (Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374, 391 A.2d 364 (Md., 1978) , 2013). The following afternoon, she received a telephone call from a person who identified himself as her assailant. The victim notified the Montgomery...