DOC PREVIEW
CMU ISR 08732 - The Frye Opinion

This preview shows page 1 out of 2 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

© 2001-2007 Peter Nordberg. E-mail: [email protected]. Last revised: 9/17/06. See the reviews. Buy the T-shirt. Read the disclaimers.View the FAQ.The Frye OpinionThe Frye opinion, which is much discussed but little read, is remarkable both for its brevityand for its lack of citational adornment. Because the opinion is not readily availableelsewhere on the web, it is reproduced below.* * * * *FRYE v. UNITED STATES54 App. D. C. 46, 293 F. 1013No. 3968Court of Appeals of District of ColumbiaSubmitted November 7, 1923 December 3, 1923, DecidedBefore SMYTH, Chief Justice, VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice, and MARTIN, PresidingJudge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice. Appellant, defendant below, was convicted of the crimeof murder in the second degree, and from the judgment prosecutes this appeal.A single assignment of error is presented for our consideration. In the course of the trialcounsel for defendant offered an expert witness to testify to the result of a deception testmade upon defendant. The test is described as the systolic blood pressure deception test. Itis asserted that blood pressure is influenced by change in the emotions of the witness, andthat the systolic blood pressure rises are brought about by nervous impulses sent to thesympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system. Scientific experiments, it is claimed,have demonstrated that fear, rage, and pain always produce a rise of systolic blood pressure,and that conscious deception or falsehood, concealment of facts, or guilt of crime,accompanied by fear of detection when the person is under examination, raises the systolicblood pressure in a curve, which corresponds exactly to the struggle going on in the subject'smind, between fear and attempted control of that fear, as the examination touches the vitalpoints in respect of which he is attempting to deceive the examiner.In other words, the theory seems to be that truth is spontaneous, and comes withoutconscious effort, while the utterance of a falsehood requires a conscious effort, which isreflected in the blood pressure. The rise thus produced is easily detected and distinguishedfrom the rise produced by mere fear of the examination itself. In the former instance, thepressure rises higher than in the latter, and is more pronounced as the examination proceeds,while in the latter case, if the subject is telling the truth, the pressure registers highest at thebeginning of the examination, and gradually diminishes as the examination proceeds.Page1of2The Frye Opinion9/13/2007http://www.daubertontheweb.com/frye_opinion.htmPrior to the trial defendant was subjected to this deception test, and counsel offered thescientist who conducted the test as an expert to testify to the results obtained. The offer wasobjected to by counsel for the government, and the court sustained the objection. Counsel fordefendant then offered to have the proffered witness conduct a test in the presence of thejury. This also was denied.Counsel for defendant, in their able presentation of the novel question involved, correctlystate in their brief that no cases directly in point have been found. The broad ground,however, upon which they plant their case, is succinctly stated in their brief as follows:"The rule is that the opinions of experts or skilled witnesses areadmissible in evidence in those cases in which the matter of inquiry issuch that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable offorming a correct judgment upon it, for the reason that the subject-matter so far partakes of a science, art, or trade as to require aprevious habit or experience or study in it, in order to acquire aknowledge of it. When the question involved does not lie within therange of common experience or common knowledge, but requiresspecial experience or special knowledge, then the opinions ofwitnesses skilled in that particular science, art, or trade to which thequestion relates are admissible in evidence."Numerous cases are cited in support of this rule. Just when a scientific principle ordiscovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult todefine. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must berecognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from awell-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is mademust be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field inwhich it belongs.We think the systolic blood pressure deception test has not yet gained such standing andscientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify thecourts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, andexperiments thus far made.The judgment is affirmed.Page2of2The Frye


View Full Document

CMU ISR 08732 - The Frye Opinion

Documents in this Course
gnusort

gnusort

5 pages

Notes

Notes

24 pages

Citron

Citron

63 pages

Load more
Download The Frye Opinion
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view The Frye Opinion and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view The Frye Opinion 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?