The Rhetoric of Expert Testimony Standards: Why the War Between Frye and Daubert Still Smolders

6 Pages Posted: 5 Feb 2019

Date Written: February 4, 2019

Abstract

One only need look as far as Florida to see why different standards for the admissibility of expert testimony still exist in the states. Unlike other Federal Rules of Evidence that have been more or less uniformly adopted by states, the expert testimony standard of Rule 702 involving the admissibility of expert testimony continues to meet resistance. This essay highlights the importance of rhetoric in framing the debate. Specifically, the labels given each test have been used to influence and shape views about their propriety. Instead of the rhetoric, the question that should be asked is supplied by design thinking analysis, what are the rules for screening the admissibility of expert testimony at trial hired to do?

Suggested Citation

Friedland, Steven, The Rhetoric of Expert Testimony Standards: Why the War Between Frye and Daubert Still Smolders (February 4, 2019). Elon University Law Legal Studies Research Paper , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3328543 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3328543

Steven Friedland (Contact Author)

Elon University School of Law ( email )

201 N. Greene Street
Greensboro, NC 27401
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
82
Abstract Views
439
rank
348,536
PlumX Metrics