|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
For seventy years, it seems that the courts relied on the general acceptance standard announced in Frye v. United States to determine the admissibility of expert testimony. Under the Frye standard, expert testimony is admissible only if it is well recognized in the relevant scientific community. In 1975, the introduction to the Federal Rules of Evidence, which indicates that “scientific evidence should be admitted if it ‘assists the trier of fact’, questioned whether the Frye standard should be changed or altogether replaced. What would the early critics of classical jurisprudence think about the decision of Frye v. United States? Would they feel that the Frye case was concurrent with the ideas of legal realism? If so, what would they think about the Frye test?
The evolution of jurisprudence was sparked by three figures: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ... Brandeis, and Roscoe Pound. ... Holmes positioned the intellectual bases for the change by arguing that the essence of law is experience.
Approximate Word count = 741
Approximate Pages = 3
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|