发发发发

长风落日

90 A.L.R.5th 453
90 A.L.R.5th 453 (Originally published in 2001)


American Law Reports ALR5th
  N4 D5 N5 Z. Z0 W& F$ r/ BThe ALR databases are made current by the weekly addition of relevant new
cases.
- ]  o5 H% L) Q6 I6 K- g/ F- G
Post-Daubert Standards for Admissibility of Scientific and Other Expert Evidence in State Courts


Alice B. Lustre, J.D.


Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013, 34 A.L.R. 145 (App. D.C. 1923), required the proponent of scientific evidence to establish that the theory and method used by the expert witness were generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. The Frye test was quickly adopted by most states as well as the other federal courts. However, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1200, Prod. Liab. Rep. (CCH) P 13494, 37 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1, 23 Envtl. L. Rep. 20979 (1993), the United States Supreme Court determined that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 had superseded the Frye test, and enunciated a new
standard for determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence, establishing a "gatekeeping" role for federal district courts and enunciating several factors to be considered in determining the admissibility of new scientific evidence. State courts have used the Frye, Daubert, and other tests in determining the admissibility of expert testimony regarding scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. The Supreme Court of Colorado in People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68, 90 A.L.R.5th 765 (Colo. 2001), as modified, (May 14, 2001), held that the evidence rule applicable to expert testimony, rather than the Frye test, represents the appropriate standard for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence, and a trial court may, but need not, consider the factors listed in Daubert in determining reliability. This annotation collects and discusses the state cases, both criminal and civil, in which the courts have applied Daubert, Frye, or some other test in determining the admissibility of expert testimony regarding scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.
9 C+ G1 ?' q* K) J* c
& H3 D1 K; |% [7 ]3 t& T$ m
5 I. [5 F0 e  U3 i1 N) n% rTABLE OF CONTENTS
) Y' N: w, e% W

Article Outline

Index

Table of Cases, Laws, and Rules


& v  H" u- R7 ~! U; c9 {Research References
6 |! i" I- I1 f9 p( F+ @; C
ARTICLE OUTLINE

4 S8 P' O, N( h9 d5 F7 s% x- c
  S% L' w+ \2 ?' X& A" H7 S" F9 w; }I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
! W' U* ^  x) i5 ?% n$ J
§ 1[a] Introduction--Scope
, A0 z8 j$ D1 A8 P' p
* U; c- o- P# C4 n" F8 r+ m§ 1 Introduction--Related annotations

& U& r8 i7 _7 o, f+ B§ 2. Summary

" g/ C& S) x+ j' CII. STATES APPLYING DAUBERT OR SIMILAR TEST
. b" A4 i6 S0 k" A- ?7 j
§ 3. Alaska

§ 4. Arkansas
, V3 w7 V+ ~# {' m! C. E' c- D
§ 5. Colorado

§ 6. Connecticut

% s  l8 {7 M  a§ 7. Delaware
# R, F& `0 U3 X3 M: P
§ 8. Idaho

§ 9. Indiana

§ 10. Iowa
. _+ \( E1 b* h7 s
§ 11. Kentucky
( m; m' J1 ^, y0 ~. f; l* V
  m1 e4 M/ C0 x9 k! }3 c. A  R§ 12. Louisiana

; ?5 P& ~) R; m§ 13. Maine

) \4 H; N+ M2 f  J, M4 n§ 13.2. Michigan
* f/ U7 R# t; q+ j* ~1 W! Q/ p
( Z  ~% X: R; d" D5 }+ h: ?
§ 13.5. Mississippi