• Frye’d by Admissibility Standards: Does the Standard of Admissibility in State Court Make Any Difference in Practice?
  • January 18, 2012 | Authors: Emily C. Baker; Mary E. Desmond
  • Law Firms: Jones Day - Atlanta Office ; Jones Day - New York Office
  • Expert testimony frequently plays a dispositive role in mass tort and complex product liability cases, and the applicable standard used to determine whether such key evidence is admissible in state court can vary across state lines. The two principal standards of admissibility, Daubert and Frye, have been the subject of innumerable commentaries and articles, with some debating the relative pros and cons, including which standard is stricter; others advocating for particular states to either keep or modify Frye or adopt Daubert; and still others hypothesizing, as did at least one article previously featured in this publication, that the difference between Daubert and Frye does indeed make a difference in practice. While providing background on both standards, this article focuses on the primary differences between the two and presents the prevalent views on whether which standard a state applies really makes any difference in the way scientific evidence is handled in practice.