The Fluoroquinolone Toxicity Research Foundation

 
  You are visitor number Counter
Legal Research                     See downloads for: Adobe Files



Before Daubert, the standard for admissability of scientific expert opinion testimony was set forth in the case of Frye v. U.S. (1923). The Frye standard required a scientific expert's opinion to be based on "generally accepted" scientific principals. That makes it almost impossible for evidence based on novel scientific theories to be admissable (even if the novel theory proves the generally accepted theory to be false). It seems to me that, in order for a scientific theory to be generally accepted, takes lots of time and money. Until Daubert, the Frye standard pertained in federal court and was followed by most states. The Daubert opinion explained that since Frye, the rules of evidence were codified by Congress (about 1965), and that the codified rules superceeded all common law evidence rules including the Frye rule. The Daubert court explained that Federal Rule of Evidence, Rule 702, controlled the admissability of scientific expert testimony and that the "generally accepted" language did not appear in the codified rule, and was, therefore, no longer applicable.

The Florida Supreme Court specifically rejected the Daubert standard and reaffirmed the Frye standard back in about 97'.