This paper will discuss and analyze the problem of scientific evidence and expert testimony from Frye v. United States to the new grounds for admissibility established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This note will specifically focus on some of the changes made by the courts to the common law rule and follow its transformation to a more liberal standard within the federal court system. The paper will conclude that the courts have not really changed their position on the admissibility of scientific evidence and that their current criteria still are tantamount to the old general acceptance standard.
Note, Much Ado about Nothing - The Supreme Court Still Fails to Solve the General Acceptance Problem Regarding Expert Testimony and Scientific Evidence, 8 J.L. & Health 245 (1993-1994)