Frye v. United States (1923): Shaping the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Today we'll be looking at the Fry versus the United
States case marked the turning point and how American courts
who evaluate scientific evidence. At its core, the case address
whether results from a systolic blood pressure deception test it's
kind of an early form of polygraphs, could be admitted
as expert testimony. The DC Circuit Court ultimately ruled against admission.

(00:24):
Establishment became known as the Fry standard. The court's decision
emphasized that scientific evidence is admissible only if the underlying
principle or technique has gained general acceptance within the relevant
scientific community. The standards sought to prevent juries from being
swayed by experimental or untested methods lacking broad scientific credibility.

(00:45):
By requiring consensus among experts, the ruling reinforced the importance
of reliability and court room science, even if it came
at the expense of excluding innovative but still developing techniques.
For forensic psych Fry had a significant and last impact.
Many psychological assessments, particularly those emerging in the early twentieth century,
faced high barriers to entry under the rule. For example,

(01:08):
light detection methods were excluded because they had not yet
earned sufficient acceptance among psychologists and physiologists psychic Newer psychological
tests have also struggled to meet the threshold, slurring the
integration of cutting edge psychological tools. This was later refined
by the Daubert versus Merrill Dal Pharmaceutical's decision, which broadened

(01:29):
the criteria for admissibility. The Fry's standard, though remains influential
in some jurisdictions today, it serves as a reminder of
the delicate balance courts must strike, allowing scientific progress to
inform justice while ensuring that only reliable, broadly validated methods
are presented to juries.