FRYE test

Although the Supreme Court stated that the Frye decision did not survive the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Frye test remains influential in American courts. The Frye test refers to the standard for admission of scientific evidence applied by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Frye V. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). In refusing to admit the results of a lie detector test, the court stated in pertinent part ... 

The continued viability of the Frye approach has been a subject of much debate, both before and after Daubert. The purpose of the Frye test was to prevent...the introduction into evidence of specious and unfounded scientific principles or conclusions based upon such principles. Advocates of this conservative approach argue that it protects the legal system from the junk science that plagues the litigation process. As E.A. Firestone has explained ... 

Many toxic tort plaintiffs argue against the application of the Frye test. Specifically, as innocent victims, they contend that they should not have to wait several years for adequate epidemiologic studies... 

In a much earlier judicial decision related to the scientific reliability of lie detection tests, the so-called Frye rule had emerged. The rule emphasized the need for scientific evidence to have general acceptance before it could be presented to a jury it held sway in courts until the Daubert decision (and is still considered appropriate in some jurisdictions). 

Gages, Diaphragm. See Fig Gl. The gage is placed a fixed distance from die expl to be tested and die deflection of the steel or copperplate disc is measured. Because of the complex nature of the response the gage is useful oniy for comparison purposes Refs 1) P.M. Frye J.E. Eldridge, OSRD 6248(1946) 2) R.H. Cole, Underwater... 

Court Acceptance of Scientific Techniques. There continue to be problems over the admissability of new scientific tests and procedures in court. Basically, judges still employ the criteria used in Frye vs. United States 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), which required that new tests must gain general scientific acceptance before they can be admitted into court. While there is no fundamental problem with such criteria, difficulties do arise when an individual scientist or expert presents information to a single judge or court. Quite apart from the test itself,... 

Product Isolation. Frye and Horst (7,8) postulated that poly (vinyl chloride) stabilization resulted from the replacement of labile chlorine atoms by the ligands of the stabilizer. To test this hypothesis and to confirm that the reaction takes place according to Reaction 2,... 

Potential toxicology experts should note that predictions of the demise of the Frye general acceptance test have yet to be realized. As of the fall of 2002, state courts in at least 17 jurisdictions (Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington) remain committed to Frye. Importantly, three-quarters of these jurisdictions fall within the 25 most populated states, and two-thirds fall within the 25 most litigious states. Consequently, a majority of state trials are conducted in Frye jurisdictions that may or may not recognize or incorporate Daubert indicia (factors) of validity and reliability into their Frye jurisprudence. 

In DuPont v. Castillo, the Florida District Court of Appeals (Fifth District) said it is the function of the court to not permit cases to be resolved on the basis of evidence for which a predicate of reliability has not been established. Reliability is fundamental to issues involved in the admissibility of evidence... Novel scientific evidence must also be shown to be reliable on some basis other than simply that it is the opinion of the witness who seeks to offer the opinion. Finally, in Slay v. Keller Industries, Inc., No. 1001091, Ala. (2001), the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that mere assertion of belief, without any supporting research, testing, or experiments, cannot qualify as proper scientific testimony under either the general acceptance standard enunciated in Frye or the scientifically reliable standard of Daubert. ... 

By contrast, the critics of Frye proclaim that the test should be abolished because it bans useful groundbreaking studies or theories from the courtroom. Plaintiffs have argued that the people who have been harmed by exposure to toxic substances should not have to wait for proof of others being similarly hurt before they can receive relief. This argument is especially significant in the context of toxic tort litigation, where anecdotal (case) reports have been cited by some experts as evidence that a toxic substance causes a specific type of injury. 

Critics of Frye saw an opportunity to loosen the admission standards for expert testimony upon the promulgation of the FRF in 1975. The FRE did not mention Frye or the general acceptance test. In fact, according to the court in United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1234 (3d Cir. 1985), neither the text...nor the accompanying notes of the advisory committee...explicitly set forth the appropriate standard by which the admissibility of novel scientific evidence is to be established. ... 

In toxic tort and product liability litigation, the admissibility of new risk assessment methods and data must be approved by the trial judge before being presented to the jury. The U.S. Supreme Court announced a new standard for the admission of scientific data in 1993 in its Daubert decision (Daubert 1993). Under this new standard, federal judges must serve as a gatekeeper to ensure that scientific evidence is reliable and relevant, which includes an assessment of whether the evidence (i) has been empirically tested, (ii) has a known rate of error, (iii) has been peer-reviewed and published, and (iv) is generally accepted within the relevant scientific field. Many state courts have adopted a similar standard, although some still apply the earlier standard on admissibility (Frye 1923), which is whether the evidence is... 

Waif, A.A., Rhodes, M.E. and Frye, C.A. (2004) Antidepressant effects of ERp-selective estrogen receptor modulators in the forced swim test. Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior, 78, 523-529. 

Figure 17.5.3 Equivalent circuit for a quartz crystal under mass and liquid loading. The circuit elements of the unperturbed crystal are L], Ci, / i, and Cq. Liquid- and mass-loading adds additional elements L2, / 2, and L3. Cp represents any parasitic capacitance of the test fixture. [Reprinted with permission from S. J. Martin, V. E. Granstaff, and G. C. Frye, Anal. Chem., 63, 2272 (1991). Copyright 1991, American Chemical Society.]...

---