Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=609581
 
 

Citations (4)



 
 

Footnotes (80)



 


 



Does Frye or Daubert Matter? A Study of Scientific Admissibility Standards


Edward K. Cheng


Vanderbilt Law School

Albert Yoon


University of Toronto - Faculty of Law


Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 22

Abstract:     
Nearly every treatment of scientific evidence begins with a faithful comparison between the Frye and Daubert standards. Since 1993, jurists and legal scholars have spiritedly debated which standard is preferable and whether particular states should adopt one standard or the other. These efforts beg the question: Does a state's choice of scientific admissibility standard matter? A growing number of scholars suspect that the answer is no. Under this theory, the import of the Supreme Court's Daubert decision was not in its doctrinal standard, but rather in the general consciousness it raised about the problems of unreliable scientific evidence. This Article empirically examines this question. Using data provided by the Federal Judicial Center, the National Center for State Courts, and the New York and Connecticut court systems, we apply a novel approach of using removal from state to federal court to measure litigants' perceptions of scientific admissibility standards in practice. Our analysis strongly supports the theory that a state's choice between Frye and Daubert does not matter in tort cases. The results raise larger questions about the efficacy of tort reform through procedural rules, suggesting that the judiciary in some contexts may be more responsive to educative measures than to doctrinally based procedural reforms.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 35

Keywords: Daubert, Frye, removal, scientific evidence, admissibility, law and science, empirical, tort reform

JEL Classification: K13, K41

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: November 30, 2004  

Suggested Citation

Cheng, Edward K. and Yoon, Albert, Does Frye or Daubert Matter? A Study of Scientific Admissibility Standards. Virginia Law Review, Vol. 90, 2005. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=609581

Contact Information

Edward K. Cheng (Contact Author)
Vanderbilt Law School ( email )
131 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37203-1181
United States
615-875-7630 (Phone)
Albert Yoon
University of Toronto - Faculty of Law ( email )
78 and 84 Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C5
Canada
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 3,385
Downloads: 384
Download Rank: 40,756
Citations:  4
Footnotes:  80

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.500 seconds