Comparing and contrasting the Frye standard, [Frye vs. United States Term Paper

Comparing and contrasting the Frye standard, [Frye vs. United States (293 F. 1013 (DC Cir 1923)], with the Daubert standard [Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (509 U.S. 579 (1993) - Term Paper Example s called â€Å"Fyre in drag.† Problems have come up with this standard, due to the fact that it has led to eyebrows being raised regarding the vitality of the standard and on its flexibility to be able to adjust to different situations and fresh and new scientific matters, where "general" or "widespread" approval is not gathered. Conversely, whether fresh or new, supposedly scientific matters are issues of significance to the court have been quizzed. As a substitute to this standard, many law courts apply Rule 702 of the  Federal Rules of Evidence, as the basis for professional testimony and scientific evidence. In my essay I will provide an explanation of how courts view science and how that view has changed over the last century. I will make also make a prediction of future evidentiary issues for forensic evidence and explain whether forensic evidence in criminal investigations and trials will increase or decrease over the next two decades.   Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller were born with abnormal birth problems that relate to the physicality of the body. Both them together with their real parents had decided to take legal action against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc, which is a branch of Dow Chemical Company, which is solely situated in some state court in the state of California in the United states of America, They believed that a specific drug in the name of Bendectin had caused the birth abnormalities. Merrell Dow thus transferred the case to federal court, and then made the move for Summary judgment owing to the fact that their legal committee submitted records indicating that no published scientific research and experimentation pointed out a connection between Bendectin and birth abnormalities. Daubert and Schuller, forwarded their professional evidence formulated by themselves which postulated that Bendectin might cause abnormalities resulting from the birth process. In the case in the year 1923, Frye vs united states, 293 F1013(D.C Cir 1923), the