Massachusetts Medical Society
In one of the most anticlimactic cases in recent years, the Supreme Court ruled on the last day of its 1992-1993 term that federal judges should admit all relevant scientific testimony and evidence that is “reliable”. The result was so uncontroversial that both sides in the case said they were satisfied; because the result was also so vague, it will probably be years before its effect can be accurately ascertained. The facts of the case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are somewhat more interesting than its prosaic legal conclusion.
George J. Annas,
Scientific Evidence in the Courtroom: The Death of the Frye Rule,
New England Journal of Medicine
Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/1254