<i>Daubert</i>: Interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence

In 1992 Judge Becker and Professor Orenstein referred to the Frye issue - the admissibility of novel scientific evidence-as the "most controversial and important unresolved question" in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Indeed, during the prior decade the federal courts had battled over the issue, as had their state counterparts. Similarly, text writers and law review commentators vigorously disagreed about the proper standard for admitting scientific evidence. While one ABA report on the Federal Rules explored the Frye issue and concluded that it "is not clear that any standard would produce agreement at the moment," another report cited it as deserving "further investigation." In addition, several ABA conferences were devoted exclusively to this issue.