FRYE v. UNITED STATES, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)

ISSUE(S): Could the results of the deception test be used as evidence?

FACTS:
• Frye was convicted of second degree murder.
• Before the trial, Frye took a deception test to prove his innocence and presented an expert witness to testify on the results.
• The prosecution objected, and the court sustained the objection.
• Frye argued that the opinions of experts is admissible in those cases in which the expert can clarify the issue in order for judgment to be made.

HOLDING(S): Expert testimony must be based on well-recognized scientific principles, and be generally accepted in the community to which it belongs.
REASONING: The deception test had not gained such standing and scientific …show more content…
By rejecting the expert's testimony, it affirmed the judge's role as "gatekeeper" of the court.
WISEMAN v. MARLEY CO., 528 U.S. 440 (2000)

ISSUE(S): Can a court order judgment as a matter of law after finding that expert testimony was unreliable and should not have been accepted in court?
FACTS:
• Bonnie Weisgram died of carbon monoxide poisoning in a house fire.
• Her son, Chad Weisgram claimed that the fire was caused by a defective heater manufactured by Marley Co.
• Weisgram presented three expert witnesses.
• Marley Co. claimed that their testimony was unreliable and therefore should be excluded from trial.
• The courts sided with Weisgram, accepting his expert testimony.
• The Court of appeals reversed the decision, stating that Weisgram's expert testimony was speculative and not scientifically sound.
• The court also held that Marley's motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted because of Weisgram's faulty testimony.
HOLDING(S): The Supreme Court decided with the Court of Appeals that the motion for judgment should have been granted and Weisgram’s expert testimony