Frye v. United States

A plain-English summary from Criminal Defense Resources™, a free resource for pro per/pro se defendants and their families.

Court

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided

December 3, 1923

Citation

293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)

Topics

Expert Witnesses (Rule 702)

What did the court decide?

The court affirmed a second-degree murder conviction and upheld the exclusion of a defense expert who would have testified about the results of a "systolic blood pressure deception test" (an early forerunner of the polygraph) given to the defendant. The court said that expert testimony based on a scientific principle is admissible only if the principle is "sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs," and this test had not.

Why does it matter?

This is the source of the "Frye" or "general acceptance" test. Federal courts replaced it with the Daubert approach in 1993. Before Arizona amended its Rule 702 to follow Daubert, effective January 1, 2012 (Arizona Supreme Court Order R-10-0035; see also State v. Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. 590 (2014)), Arizona courts applied the Frye test to scientific expert evidence. Some states still use Frye. This is a different case from Missouri v. Frye (2012), which is about plea offers.

Where can I read the full opinion?

Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Always read the full opinion and check whether later cases have limited or changed it. A summary can leave out important details.

Related rulings

• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 1993)
• Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (U.S. Supreme Court, 1999)
• State v. Bernstein (Herman) (Arizona Supreme Court, 2015)
• State v. Schoenhardt (Arizona Court of Appeals, 2022)