What is the Difference Between Daubert and Frye?
🆚 Go to Comparative Table 🆚The Daubert and Frye standards are two different approaches used to determine the admissibility of expert testimony in court. They differ in terms of their focus and the factors they consider. The main differences between the two standards are:
- Focus:
- Frye Standard: Focuses on one question - whether the expert's opinion is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community.
- Daubert Standard: Emphasizes a list of factors to consider for admissibility, such as relevance, reliability, and general acceptance.
- Approach:
- Frye Standard: Arguably places the decision more in the hands of the expert's own community and relies on a bright-line rule.
- Daubert Standard: Offers more flexibility and places the gatekeeping function in the hands of the trial judge, requiring assessment of factors such as the relevance, reliability, and general acceptance of the expert's opinion.
In short, the Daubert Standard is more comprehensive and flexible than the Frye Standard, as it considers multiple factors for admissibility rather than just relying on general acceptance. While Frye focuses on the general acceptance of the expert's opinion, Daubert offers a broadened approach that allows courts to consider various factors in making admissibility decisions.
Comparative Table: Daubert vs Frye
The main differences between the Daubert and Frye standards are related to the admissibility of expert evidence in court. Here is a table summarizing the key differences:
| Daubert Standard | Frye Standard |
|---|---|
| Flexible standard, allows courts to consider various factors when evaluating expert evidence | Focuses on one question: whether the expert's opinion is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community |
| Enumerated factors to consider: relevance, reliability, and general acceptance | No specific factors, but rather a focus on general acceptance |
| Allows for cross-examination, introduction of contrary evidence, and the court's careful instruction regarding the burden of proof | Places the decision more in the hands of the expert's own community |
| Applicable in federal courts and approximately 40 states | Applicable in a few states and is the founding member of the standard for admissibility of expert evidence |
In summary, the Daubert standard provides a broader and more flexible approach to evaluating expert evidence, while the Frye standard focuses on the general acceptance of the expert's opinion within the relevant scientific community. The Daubert standard takes into account factors such as relevance, reliability, and general acceptance, whereas the Frye standard relies solely on general acceptance. The Daubert standard is applicable in federal courts and many states, while the Frye standard is applicable in a smaller number of states.
- Saute vs Fry
- Frying vs Deep Frying
- Fryer vs Roaster Chicken
- Fraunhofer vs Fresnel Diffraction
- FMEA vs DFMEA
- Dumas vs Kjeldahl Method
- Inductive vs Deductive Research
- Inductive vs Deductive
- FMEA vs FMECA
- Court vs Trial
- State vs Federal Courts
- Fry Pan vs Saute Pan
- Jury vs Grand Jury
- Judge vs Jury
- Research vs Scientific Method
- Induction vs Deduction
- Grand Jury vs Trial Jury
- Dew Point vs Freezing Point
- PFMEA vs DFMEA