Two of the most important standards regarding expert witnesses are the Frye and Daubert standards. Those will be discussed in detail along with the M’Naghten and Durham rules. Following the explanation of the two standards and the two rules, an article by Jennifer McDougal and Ray Bull will be analyzed and related to the discussion of the validity of the forensic interview. The Frye standard originated in during the 1923 appellate court case Frye v. United States. In the original case, Frye was charged with second-degree murder. At trial, Frye’s counsel wanted to introduce an expert who would use a blood pressure test to purportedly show whether Frye was being dishonest when he testified. The trial court rejected the testimony of the expert,
…show more content…
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The plaintiffs of this case claimed that their babies suffered limb reduction birth defects because of Bendectin, a drug prescribed for morning sickness, manufactured by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The plaintiffs introduced expert testimony at trial that had not been published, and the research had only been established after the litigation began (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) From here, the Daubert test emerged, which states that trial judges should screen scientific testimony or evidence for relevancy, legal sufficiency, and reliability (Bartol & Bartol, 16). Relevancy refers to the expectation that the scientific results must be directly pertinent to the case at hand (Bartol & Bartol, 16). Legal sufficiency refers to the requirement for scientific evidence to deliver proof of the issues of the case (Bartol & Bartol, 17). Reliability refers to the requirement for a scientific theory to have been tested, the error rate to have been established, the theory to have been peer reviewed, and the general acceptance of the theory to have been established within the scientific community (Bartol & Bartol, …show more content…
The M’Naghten rule originated in the 19th century in Britain. Daniel M’Naghten murdered a man because he feared he would be persecuted. Nobody doubted that he had committed the murder. The rule at the time, however, stated that if defendants suffered from mental illnesses, they could not defy the instincts to commit crimes (Bartol & Bartol, 120). This case led to the development of the M’Naghten rule, which is commonly referred to the “right and wrong test” (Bartol & Bartol, 120). Today, the right and wrong test attempts to decide whether the defendant was sane at the time of the crime. If he or she was insane at the time of the crime, he or she cannot be held responsible for the crime (Bartol & Bartol,
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The plaintiffs of this case claimed that their babies suffered limb reduction birth defects because of Bendectin, a drug prescribed for morning sickness, manufactured by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The plaintiffs introduced expert testimony at trial that had not been published, and the research had only been established after the litigation began (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) From here, the Daubert test emerged, which states that trial judges should screen scientific testimony or evidence for relevancy, legal sufficiency, and reliability (Bartol & Bartol, 16). Relevancy refers to the expectation that the scientific results must be directly pertinent to the case at hand (Bartol & Bartol, 16). Legal sufficiency refers to the requirement for scientific evidence to deliver proof of the issues of the case (Bartol & Bartol, 17). Reliability refers to the requirement for a scientific theory to have been tested, the error rate to have been established, the theory to have been peer reviewed, and the general acceptance of the theory to have been established within the scientific community (Bartol & Bartol, …show more content…
The M’Naghten rule originated in the 19th century in Britain. Daniel M’Naghten murdered a man because he feared he would be persecuted. Nobody doubted that he had committed the murder. The rule at the time, however, stated that if defendants suffered from mental illnesses, they could not defy the instincts to commit crimes (Bartol & Bartol, 120). This case led to the development of the M’Naghten rule, which is commonly referred to the “right and wrong test” (Bartol & Bartol, 120). Today, the right and wrong test attempts to decide whether the defendant was sane at the time of the crime. If he or she was insane at the time of the crime, he or she cannot be held responsible for the crime (Bartol & Bartol,