Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence
I. Overview: Admissibility of Scientific Evidence
Scientific evidence refers to evidence derived from technical or scientific methods, including:
DNA testing
Forensic analysis (fingerprints, ballistics, toxicology)
Expert testimony on specialized knowledge
Legal Framework
Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE)
Rule 702: Expert testimony is admissible if it will help the trier of fact, and the witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.
Rule 703: Experts can base opinions on facts or data reasonably relied upon in the field.
Rule 704: Experts may offer opinions on ultimate issues.
Judicial Standards for Scientific Evidence
Courts primarily use two tests:
A. Frye Standard (Frye v. United States, 1923)
Test: Evidence must be based on “general acceptance” in the relevant scientific community.
Historically applied in many states prior to adoption of Rule 702.
B. Daubert Standard (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993)
Federal standard for admissibility of expert scientific evidence.
Key factors (not exclusive) for judges to consider:
Whether the theory or technique can be tested.
Whether it has been peer-reviewed and published.
Known or potential error rates.
Standards controlling the technique’s operation.
General acceptance in the relevant scientific community.
Judges act as gatekeepers, ensuring reliability and relevance before admitting scientific evidence.
II. Key Judicial Cases
1. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
Issue:
Is a lie detector (systolic blood pressure test) admissible to prove deception?
Holding:
No. Scientific evidence must be generally accepted in its field to be admissible.
Details:
Expert attempted to introduce systolic blood pressure testing to detect lies.
Court ruled the technique was novel and lacked general acceptance.
Impact:
Established the “general acceptance” test (Frye standard).
Used widely in U.S. states until Daubert provided a more flexible standard.
2. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
Issue:
Are expert opinions on teratogenic effects of a drug admissible under Rule 702?
Holding:
No. Trial courts must act as gatekeepers to assess reliability of scientific testimony.
Details:
Plaintiffs alleged Bendectin caused birth defects.
Court emphasized that Rule 702 superseded Frye in federal courts, requiring:
Relevance
Reliability (scientifically valid reasoning)
Impact:
Shifted from general acceptance to scientific validity and methodology.
Introduced factors for judges to evaluate admissibility.
3. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
Issue:
Does the Daubert gatekeeping standard apply to technical or specialized knowledge (non-scientific expertise)?
Holding:
Yes. Daubert applies to all expert testimony, not just scientific evidence.
Details:
Plaintiffs alleged tire defect caused an accident.
Court extended Daubert criteria to engineering expertise, requiring reliability and relevance in technical fields.
Impact:
Broadened Daubert to all expert testimony, including engineering, accounting, and accident reconstruction.
4. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997)
Issue:
Can appellate courts overturn trial courts’ exclusion of scientific expert testimony?
Holding:
Abuse-of-discretion standard applies; trial judges have wide latitude.
Details:
Plaintiff claimed PCB exposure caused cancer.
Trial court excluded expert evidence linking PCB to cancer due to weak methodology.
Supreme Court affirmed, emphasizing deference to trial court’s gatekeeping function.
Impact:
Reinforced trial judges’ authority to evaluate reliability of scientific evidence.
Prevents appellate courts from second-guessing methodological judgments lightly.
5. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009)
Issue:
Can forensic laboratory reports be admitted without the analyst testifying in person?
Holding:
No. Confrontation Clause requires analysts to testify in person for testimonial lab reports.
Details:
Certificates of drug analysis were admitted without live testimony.
Supreme Court ruled this violated the defendant’s right to confront witnesses.
Impact:
Affected admissibility of forensic reports.
Reinforced that reliability is insufficient alone; constitutional rights must be preserved.
6. Missouri v. McCullough, 475 S.W.3d 412 (Mo. 2015)
Issue:
Is hair microscopy evidence admissible for identity or drug exposure?
Holding:
Court limited admissibility due to scientific unreliability.
Details:
Defense challenged use of hair comparison to link defendant to drugs.
Court found technique lacked sufficient error rate data and validation.
Impact:
Illustrates judicial scrutiny of forensic methods.
Shows courts exclude outdated or unvalidated techniques.
7. United States v. Bonds, 12 F. Supp. 3d 536 (D. Md. 2014)
Issue:
Are DNA mixture interpretation techniques admissible?
Holding:
Yes, if methodology is reliable, peer-reviewed, and error rates disclosed.
Details:
Case involved complex DNA mixtures.
Court applied Daubert factors: testing, peer review, error rates, and standards.
Expert testimony admitted as reliable and relevant.
Impact:
Demonstrates modern application of Daubert to DNA and forensic sciences.
Emphasizes need for transparent methodology and known error rates.
III. Judicial Themes in Scientific Evidence
Gatekeeping Role of Judges
Ensures evidence is both reliable and relevant (Daubert/Kumho/Joiner).
Scientific Methodology Over General Acceptance
Reliability determined by methodology, peer review, error rates, not just popularity.
Constitutional Considerations
Confrontation Clause limits admissibility of untested forensic reports (Melendez-Diaz).
Scope of Daubert
Applies to scientific, technical, and other expert testimony.
Ongoing Scrutiny of Forensic Techniques
Courts evaluate error rates, validation studies, and acceptance in the scientific community.
IV. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Issue | Holding / Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Frye v. U.S. | Polygraph test admissibility | Scientific evidence must have general acceptance |
| Daubert v. Merrell Dow | Teratogenic drug evidence | Courts act as gatekeepers; relevance and reliability required |
| Kumho Tire v. Carmichael | Technical/engineering expertise | Daubert standard applies to all expert testimony |
| Joiner v. GE | Exclusion of expert testimony | Trial courts’ gatekeeping reviewed under abuse-of-discretion |
| Melendez-Diaz v. Mass. | Forensic lab reports | Analysts must testify in person; Confrontation Clause |
| McCullough | Hair microscopy evidence | Excluded due to insufficient reliability data |
| Bonds | DNA mixture interpretation | Admissible with validated methods and known error rates |
RELATED Blog
comments