Frye Standard vs. Daubert Standard: What Are the Differences?
Many attorneys acknowledge the importance of expert witness testimonies in shaping litigation outcomes. Still, the quality of the chosen expert and testimony methodologies will significantly influence admissibility processes during deposition and trial.
Since state courts usually have their preferred standard for testimony scrutiny, exercise their legal discretions, and apply their interpretations, attorneys should clearly understand the intricacies of expert testimony standards and their jurisdiction’s admissibility requirements. This should then guide their choice of an expert witness and pre-trial assessment of their testimony — so that together with their expert, they can strategize on how to prepare and present a focused testimony.
This post explores the Frye Standard vs. Daubert Standard distinctions in litigations involving schools and other agencies with a duty of care to children in their custody and the best practices instrumental for building a solid or successfully defending a suit.
Frye Standards of Expert Testimony
Attorneys and expert witnesses generally have no room for flexibility when their testimony is subjected to the sole “general acceptance” filter of the Frye Standards, particularly in cases where the expert is propounding a novel methodology, theory, or idea within their field of expertise — even if it yields “good science.”
The “general acceptance” impact of Frye Standard vs. Daubert Standard matters is exemplified in People v. Fortin (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 2000), a child abuse case in which the defense’s expert witness sought to admit “Parental Alienation Syndrome” in testimony. Although he was highly experienced in the psychiatric field and had widely discussed and published this matter, the court excluded the testimony under general acceptance grounds, citing “ it is not for a court to take pioneering risks on promising new scientific techniques…”
Similarly, we can examine the impact of the Frye Standard vs. Daubert Standard in a negligence case against a school or agency where a child was injured due to the behavioral aggression of another child. If the school knew the child had historically had these behavioral tendencies, the expectation is that it would closely supervise the student in every activity or provide behavioral plans. The plaintiff’s expert witness could effectively prove negligent supervision and liability if the school failed in this regard.
However, suppose the same expert presents the need for more personalized care approaches, such as trauma-informed supervision by the responsible personnel or predictive analytics. In that case, it may be difficult to admit their opinion under Frye. Although these techniques may be appreciated in education and mental health spaces, they have not been established as requisite student supervision practices in schools due to practicality and safety concerns.
Therefore, in navigating the Frye Standard vs. Daubert Standard in school liability dynamics, if the Frye Standards are the requirement, the best recourse for attorneys would be to enlist an expert whose opinion is predicated on traditional, well-established standards and practices in the field of education administration and child safety and supervision over cutting-edge techniques like biometric monitoring, predictive analytics, social media monitoring, and more.
An expert should, therefore, be well-versed in the activity-specific professional standard of care in schools or agencies. The professional standard of care would act as a benchmark, providing insights into what actions an individual with similar training and experience would take under a similar situation to anticipate, prevent, or respond to a child’s injury or risky behavior. They should also leverage long-term studies, publications, and peer reviews of mainstream practices.
Daubert Standards of Expert Testimony
Courts using the Daubert standard — that is, all federal courts and most states — will weigh the reliability and relevance of expert witness testimony by Rule 702. In this Frye Standard vs. Daubert Standard application, the judge, not the scientific community, acts as the “gatekeeper” in screening the evidence.
In a negligence case where a child with a disability is hurt, an expert may purport that a school’s failure to provide a specialized service or accommodation was the proximate cause of child injury. With the Daubert Standard, the expert has a vast pool of facts and data sources to support their claim. They can refer to observed trends, past judicial decisions, industry publications, peer reviews, statistics, laws and regulations, and the professional standard of care. Eventually, their opinion must be based on sufficient facts and data and reliable principles and methodologies pursuant to Rule 702.
The challenge with Daubert’s liberality is that it opens up the expert testimony to broad grounds for rigorous scrutiny and challenge. Accordingly, in Frye Standard vs. Daubert Standard matters, attorneys and their experts must prepare strong proof. They must first ascertain their testimony reasonably meets the provisions of the FRE 702 and then the five factors of the Daubert Standard, which require that the expert be qualified, their knowledge be helpful to the trier of the case, and the testimony’s content be relevant and reliable. They should reasonably screen their testimony using the Daubert Standards of:
- Whether the expert’s theory can be tested using empirical evidence rather than pure logic or speculative opinions.
- Whether the opinion has been subjected to peer review or published in industry journals and publications.
- Whether there is a known or potential error rate associated with the experts’ theory or methodology can influence conclusions.
- Whether some well-maintained standards and controls can act as a benchmark for assessing the expert’s methodology or theory.
- Whether the expert’s theory or methodology is “generally accepted” in the field.
This liberal approach of the Daubert standards allows courts to admit a wide range of expert testimony, even those with cutting-edge ideas, as long as they yield “good science” or reliable conclusions.
Daubert factors are non-exhaustible and, generally, no one factor is established as more important than the other. In navigating the Frye Standard vs. Daubert Standard dynamics, attorneys must, however, understand that courts may apply their own interpretations and legal discretions to scrutinize expert testimony, depending on the nature of the case. State courts can scrutinize evidence using Daubert, Frye, or a cross-examination of both. Some use modified versions of these standards.
Best Practices for Attorneys in School and Agency Liability Cases
What this means then for attorneys is that when preparing to qualify or challenge expert testimony in the field of education administration and child supervision and safety, they should gather comprehensive and compelling proof for effective navigation of the Frye Standard vs. Daubert Standard dynamics.
This starts with thoroughly vetting their expert witness before trial and prioritizing strong and direct qualifications. Carter v. United States exemplifies how education and general industry experience do not necessarily equate to requisite qualifications in testimony admissibility procedures. In this case, the expert’s experience as a medical doctor was still deemed inadequate to allow him to testify to the standard of care in emergency care, a specialty he lacked direct experience in.
A best-qualified education expert witness has held various positions in education administration and supervision matters, such as a teacher, coach, superintendent, or principal. Additionally, they should be experienced and well-versed in navigating the intricacies of all school and agency liability issues in courts. They should have a strong understanding of activity-specific professional standards of care, pertinent federal, state, and laws and regulations, research, and any guidelines by oversight organizations.
Finally, in navigating Frye Standard vs. Daubert Standard, attorneys should be proactive in determining their jurisdiction’s requisite standards and preparing their expert witness accordingly.
Expert Witness Services in School and Agency Cases
At School Liability Expert Group, hundreds of law firms across the United States, as well as schools, agencies, and parents, have engaged our court-qualified expert witnesses for expert trial and deposition testimonies, comprehensive case reviews and reports, and consultations in school and agency liability issues. Explore our testimonials to find out why clients value our services. With our expert witnesses’ diversified and unmatched experience in the field of education administration and supervision, our team can assist you in any school or agency liability matter in any U.S. state and Canada, including but not limited to special education services, student supervision, hiring, supervision, and retention of employees, child custody matter, school transportation matters, Title IX, and abuse. We are well-versed in each court system’s Frye Standard vs. Daubert Standard practices. For more information on how we can assist with your case, book a call with an expert today.
