Reed v. Maryland9/6/1978
admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." (Emphasis supplied.)
That is to say, before a scientific opinion will be received as evidence at trial, the basis of that opinion must be shown to be generally accepted as reliable within the expert's particular scientific field. Thus, according to the Frye standard, if a new scientific technique's validity is in controversy in the relevant scientific community, or if it is generally regarded as an experimental technique, then expert testimony based upon its validity cannot be admitted into evidence.
The identity of the relevant scientific community is, of course, a matter which depends upon the particular technique in question. In general, members of the relevant scientific community will include those whose scientific background and training are sufficient to allow them to comprehend and understand the process and form a judgment about it. In unusual circumstances, a few courts have held that the experts thus qualified might properly be from a somewhat narrower field. See People v. Williams, 164 Cal.App.2d Supp. 858, 331 P. 2d 251 (1958).
This criterion of "general acceptance" in the scientific community has come to be the standard in almost all of the courts in the country which have considered the question of the admissibility of scientific evidence. See, e.g., Rivers v. Black, 259 Ala. 528, 68 So. 2d 2 (1953); Pulakis v. State, 476 P. 2d 474 (Alas. 1970); State v. Valdez, 91 Ariz. 274, 371 P. 2d 894 (1962); People v. Busch, 56 Cal. 2d 868, 16 Cal. Rptr. 898, 366 P. 2d 314 (1961); People v. Williams, supra; Brooke v. People, 139 Colo. 388, 339 P. 2d 993 (1959); Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1953); Salisbury v. State, 221 Ga. 718, 146 S.E.2d 776 (1966); State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430, 462 P. 2d 729 (1969); State v. Lowry, 163 Kan. 622, 185 P. 2d 147 (1947); State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310, 110 A.2d 588 (1954); Commonwealth v. Fatalo, 346 Mass. 266, 191 N.E.2d 479 (1963); People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270, 38 N.W.2d 322 (1949); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Stout, 478 S.W.2d 368 (Mo. 1972); Boeche v. State, 151 Neb. 368, 37 N.W.2d 593 (1949); State v. Arnwine, 67 N.J. Super. 483, 171 A.2d 124 (1961); State v. Trimble, 68 N. M. 406, 362 P. 2d 788 (1961); People v. Alston, 79 Misc. 2d 1077, 362 N.Y.S.2d 356 (1974); State v. Steele, 27 N.C. App. 496, 219 S.E.2d 540 (1975); State v. Swanson, 225 N.W.2d 283 (N.D. 1974); State v. Smith, 50 Ohio App.2d 183, 362 N.E.2d 1239 (1976); Henderson v. State, 94 Okla. Crim. 45, 230 P. 2d 495 (1951); State v. Green, 271 Ore. 153, 531 P. 2d 245 (1975); United States v. Bruno, 333 F. Supp. 570 (E.D. Pa. 1971); Romero v. State, 493 S.W.2d 206 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); State v. Woo, 84 Wash. 2d 472, 527 P. 2d 271 (1974); Puhl v. Page 383} Milwaukee Automobile Ins. Co., 8 Wis. 2d 343, 99 N.W.2d 163 (1959).
Although Frye v. United States, supra, was a case involving the results of a lie detector examination, the test itself has been broadly applied, and judged the appropriate standard to apply to newly developed methods of scientific discovery. The Frye test has been invoked by courts in their consideration of, inter alia, paraffin test, Brooke v. People, supra; medical testimony regarding the cause of birth defects, Puhl v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. Co., supra; breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication, People v. Morse, supra; truth serum injections, State v. Linn, supra; blood tests, People v. Alston, supra; neutron activation analysis, State v.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|