NCJ Number
169935
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 21 Issue: 2 Dated: (April 1997) Pages: 121-140
Date Published
1997
Length
20 pages
Annotation
This article contrasts the Daubert standards for the admissibility of scientific expert testimony with the previous Frye standards and examines the possible implications of the Daubert standards for forensic psychological testimony.
Abstract
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. established guidelines for screening the admissibility of scientific evidence and overruled the Frye "general acceptance" (by the scientific community) doctrine. The Daubert holding redefined judicial standards for qualifying experts. The three key elements of the test for the admissibility of scientific evidence articulated in Daubert are the reliability, relevance, and legal sufficiency of the proffered evidence, drawn from Federal Rules of Evidence 701, 702, 703, 704, 401, and 403. Although the impact of the emerging Daubert standards for psychology remains unknown, the new standards may offer more predictability and flexibility than pre- existing standards, thus facilitating more effective professional interactions between the courts and forensic psychologists in the future. Forensic psychological experts will have to be explicit about the scientific foundations of their opinions. The more flexible formula for the admission of scientific evidence may exert greater quality control than the Frye test. It may also enhance the relationship of psychology and law by eliminating some sources of controversy within the professional community over expert witnesses. This article also identifies research needs that stem from the new standards. 84 references