How does the Frye standard differ from Daubert?

How does the Frye standard differ from Daubert?

• A. Frye requires general acceptance in the relevant field.
• B. Frye is more flexible and evidence-based than Daubert.
• C. Frye applies only to digital evidence.
• D. Daubert is the more flexible, evidence-based gatekeeping standard.

Answer: (D)

When evaluating whether expert testimony is scientifically reliable, the focus is on how admissibility is judged. The Frye approach centers on general acceptance in the relevant scientific community; if a method isn’t broadly accepted, it’s excluded even if it has some support. This creates a rigid standard that doesn’t examine the details of how the method works or its error rates, just whether enough experts in the field accept it.

Daubert, by contrast, gives judges a gatekeeping role to assess reliability using a flexible, evidence-based framework. It looks at whether the method can be tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, the known or potential error rates, and whether there are standards controlling its use, among other factors. Importantly, general acceptance isn’t the sole criterion; newer or evolving techniques can be admitted if their reliability is demonstrated.

So the better description is that Daubert is the more flexible, evidence-based gatekeeping standard, whereas Frye’s requirement of general acceptance is the criterion that makes Frye feel more rigid. This is why Daubert largely replaced Frye in many courts, though some jurisdictions still apply Frye to certain types of evidence.