A Frye hearing was recently held in the Circuit Court of Cook County, addressing the admissibility of scientific evidence related to genetic testing for BAP-1, specifically for a plaintiff with mesothelioma potentially linked to asbestos exposure. Frye hearings play a critical role in determining whether novel scientific evidence is reliable enough to be presented in court. This article explores the Frye standard, how it compares to the Daubert standard, and why it remains relevant in certain states.
What is a Frye Hearing?
A Frye hearing is a pre-trial proceeding where the court assesses whether the scientific methodology used to gather evidence is generally accepted as reliable by experts in the relevant field. This hearing stems from the 1923 case of Frye v. United States, in which the court ruled that scientific evidence must be widely accepted within the scientific community to be admissible. The Frye standard focuses solely on novel scientific expert testimony, which means that it is used to assess cutting-edge or unconventional scientific methods, like genetic testing in asbestos-related mesothelioma cases.
Frye vs. Daubert: Standards for Admissibility of Expert Testimony
Most states follow either the Frye or Daubert standards when evaluating the admissibility of scientific or expert testimony. In some cases, states even employ a hybrid approach, combining elements from both standards.
- Frye Standard: Established in 1923, the Frye standard requires that scientific evidence be “generally accepted” by experts within the specific field. This standard is narrow, focusing specifically on scientific validity rather than broader expert testimony.
- Daubert Standard: Created by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), the Daubert standard is broader and applies to all expert witness testimony. The Daubert standard involves five factors to assess whether expert testimony is scientifically valid and reliable:
- Testability: Can the theory or technique be tested, and has it been tested?
- Peer Review: Has the theory or technique undergone peer review and publication?
- Error Rate: Is there a known or potential error rate for the theory or technique?
- Acceptance: Is the theory or technique widely accepted within the scientific community?
- Standards and Controls: Were standards and controls in place, and was the testing conducted independently of litigation?
The Daubert standard provides more flexibility for admissibility, as it evaluates expert testimony’s reliability and relevance, even if it involves less widely accepted methods. Frye, by contrast, focuses strictly on consensus within the scientific community.
States Adhering to the Frye Standard
Although Daubert has been widely adopted, several states continue to follow the Frye standard for admissibility of scientific evidence. These states include:
- California
- Illinois
- Minnesota
- New Jersey
- New York
- Pennsylvania
- Washington
These states prefer the Frye standard because it requires a consensus within the scientific community, which they view as a reliable measure for novel scientific methodologies.
The Role of Frye Hearings in Scientific Evidence Admissibility
In Frye hearings, judges evaluate scientific evidence to determine its general acceptance within the expert community. For example, in the recent Cook County Frye hearing on genetic testing for mesothelioma, the court assessed whether the genetic testing for BAP-1 met this criterion of general acceptance. The focus was on whether the technique is recognized as a reliable method within the relevant scientific field, making it admissible as expert testimony.
Frye hearings are particularly common in cases involving emerging fields of science, such as genetic testing, forensic science, and advanced medical diagnostics, where the scientific community’s consensus can play a pivotal role in ensuring that evidence is both reliable and credible.
Why Frye Still Matters
The Frye standard’s reliance on “general acceptance” may seem limiting compared to Daubert’s more flexible criteria. However, for states adhering to Frye, this criterion is seen as a safeguard against unreliable or fringe scientific practices. Frye helps ensure that only well-established, widely endorsed scientific methods are presented as evidence, reducing the risk of confusing or misleading testimony in court.
Key Takeaways for Legal Professionals
For legal professionals working in states that follow the Frye standard, it’s essential to understand the specific requirements for establishing the admissibility of scientific evidence. In cases involving novel scientific evidence, attorneys should be prepared to present expert testimony that demonstrates general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.
If you’re handling cases in California, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, or Washington, it’s crucial to align your approach with the Frye standard’s expectations. Understanding Frye hearings and the differences between Frye and Daubert will help you make stronger, evidence-based arguments and anticipate potential challenges to expert testimony.
Frye Hearings in the Modern Legal Landscape
As scientific advancements continue, Frye hearings remain a critical tool in assessing whether new methodologies meet the threshold for reliability. In cases like the recent Cook County Frye hearing on BAP-1 genetic testing, Frye hearings play a fundamental role in balancing the need for innovation with the responsibility to uphold scientific credibility and fairness in court.
