Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579
This was one of the notable cases in the US Supreme Court that encompassed standards for admitting and articulation of expert testimony especially in federal courts (Shana & Hackett, 1996). This case was about two children namely Eric Schuller and Daubert Jason who were born with birth defects.
Due to the defects, their parents decided to sue Merrell Dow pharmaceuticals claiming that they gave the mother a prenatal injection that was believed to cause the defects. Moreover, the two children submitted their investigation on the injection claiming that it caused the birth defect.
In this case, they used pharmacological studies to make an analysis and published it for review by scientists (Shana & Hackett, 1996). In line with this, they made an appeal in the US Supreme Court to determine the evidence of their studies even though it did not receive a general public acceptance. Consequently, this made the case to be ruled out (Shana & Hackett, 1996).
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013.
This case was handled in the US Supreme Court and acted as a test for the standards used in admitting both scientific and expert evidences related to a given testimony (Adina, 1996). From a careful review of history, this test was meant to determine the acceptance and admissibility of evidences from experts and scientists.
This court used this case to question the standards for admission of studies that lacked general acceptance. In this case, the US Supreme Court dictated that any testimony presented in the court must have been verified through scientific methods and only declared as authentic when there was general public acceptance (Adina, 1996).
Comparison of the two rulings
Needless to say, the two ruling are based on the principle of general acceptance of any testimony presented to the court. Moreover, the ruling dictates that any testimony must be scientifically proven by experts and scientists in order to determine whether it has the preconditions for admissibility by the court (Shana & Hackett, 1996).
Contrast
Nevertheless, the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 ruling overemphasized on general acceptance of a testimony regardless of whether it is proven to be true by experts or not (Adina, 1996).
On the other hand, though Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 takes general acceptance as a precondition for admissibility of any testimony, the ruling highly incline on evidences derived from a body of experts. In this case, the ruling is able to decimate or relax traditional barriers caused by general opinion by embracing scientific studies (Adina, 1996).
Relevance of the rulings
As an expert, it is essential to understand what the rulings mean to me in order to be critical when applying certain standards on cases presented in courts. For instance, the rulings help one in appreciating public acceptance might be biased from a scientific perspective. In this case, it is important for an expert to consider multidimensional approaches in order to evaluate the admissibility of any testimony or evidence presented in a court of law.
Rule 702 of the federal rule of evidence
This is a rule that puts appropriate limits governing the admissibility of scientific evidences in regards to a given testimony (Adina, 1996). The rule weighs the reliability and relevance of scientific methods used in order to come up with appropriate evidences. In this case, the ruling relies on the use of facts to provide evidence in support of a given testimony and how evaluation can be done to prove the facts (Shana & Hackett, 1996).
References
Adina, S. (1996). Dogma of Empiricism Revisited: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the Need to Resurrect the Philosophical Insight of Frye v. United States. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 10: 149–237.
Shana, M. & Hackett, J. (1996). Setting Boundaries between Science and Law: Lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. Science, Technology & Human Values 21 (2): 131–156.