Compare and contrast the elements of the kelly-frye and daubert decisions what you think about each decision and how it pertains to the rules of evidence?

Answer 1

Here is two websites containing information on the Kelly-Frye and the Daubert decisions. The Kelly- Frye test refers to to a standard for admitting scientific evidence at trial. The Daubert decision is about the United States Supreme Court issued an

opinion relating to how federal judges should decide whether to allow expert testimony

into the courtroom. Prior to this, most federal and state court judges had been

relying upon two standards to decide if expert testimony was admissible: relevance (if

the testimony addressed a fact at issue in the case and if it would be helpful to the

jury); and a 1923 ruling known as Frye, which held that the methods used by the

expert in forming his scientific conclusions must be generally accepted within the

expert community. Here are some links below:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/frye-test/

http://www.defendingscience.org/upload/Daubert-The-Most-Influential-Supreme-Court-Decision-You-ve-Never-Heard-Of-2003.pdf

Answer 2

The Kelly-Frye standard emphasizes the general acceptance of scientific evidence within the relevant scientific community, while Daubert focuses on ensuring that the evidence is reliable and based on sound methodology. Kelly-Frye has a narrower scope compared to Daubert, which allows for a more flexible approach in evaluating expert testimony. Overall, Daubert is seen as providing a more stringent and comprehensive framework for admitting expert evidence in court, promoting more reliable and relevant evidence for judges to consider in making decisions. Both decisions pertain to the rules of evidence by setting standards for admitting expert testimony and helping to ensure that only credible and relevant evidence is presented in court.