The Daubert standard, as illustrated in United States Federal law, can be defined as a rule in evidence that determines the admissibility of an expert witnesses’ testimony. As follows, lawyers and judges cannot aid in developing an accurate conception of the law where a scientific proof is required to convict a suspect. This requires the expertise of specialists in the field, who in this case, can be deemed as psychologists, as they are able to determine the relevance of an individual’s case in terms of psychological issues, where a person with mental issues is likely to exhibit certain traits that necessitate a particular judgment (Roberts, 2016).

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"Scientific Evidence Applicability"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

The Daubert system indicated various guidelines to be employed in admitting scientific expert testimony to evidence. As agreed upon by seven Court members, the judge is deemed a gatekeeper. Based on Rule 702, a trial judge is required to ensure that scientific expert testimony stems from scientific knowledge. Moreover, the individuals also agreed on the reliability and relevance of guidelines where evidence brought forth should be related to the case at hand. It should be founded on a reliable foundation, and thus cannot be presented as a question of weight. Rule 104 (a) determines that an expert testimony should be reliable, where it should be dependent on an individual’s perception rather than a societal construct with numerous issues (Roberts, 2016).

The Frye test is considered as a general acceptance test that is used to gauge scientific evidence, where it determines whether it can be entered into evidence in a court of law. The Frye test states that an expert opinion derived from the application of a scientific technique is only deemed viable if it derives its legitimacy from the scientific community from which it is sourced. In 1993, Frye was deemed as secondary to Federal Rules of Evidence, nonetheless, it is still widely practised and considered a well-established standard to determine the relevance of evidence.

In this manner, it is difficult to determine the principle to apply when considering whether or not a scientific principle has crossed the experimental stages. In case it has elicited an ability to be employed in a court of law, it is necessary to determine the acceptance level of the principle in the scientific community.

While the Daubert standard is majorly employed in many jurisdictions, Frye supersedes the Daubert in several states. These include Florida, Illinois, California, Kansas, New York, Minnesota, Washington, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

In order to deem the Frye standard as successful, it is important to ascertain the validity of issues that relate to the dispute in question. Therefore, the court has to examine judicial precedents, books and papers relating to the subject matter in order to come up with an accurate depiction of the situation. In this way, it is able to make a judgment based on reliable information.

In 1986, Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson developed a theory deemed the psychological relevance theory. It was created to determine the manner in which speech utterances in everyday conversations are relevant and is considered as the notion of information retrieval relevance.

Therefore, the Daubert system evidences a manner in which scientific principles can be applied to come up with effective decisions in courts of law. It does not exhibit any faults in contemporary society. Its focus is on the manner of application, along with the relevance of information to gain from studies into the standard (Cwik, Witt & American Bar Association, 2006).

Therefore, it is important for law courts to find amicus curiae with expertise in certain fields as they aid in the development of a case (Roberts, 2016). Since these individuals have access to the highest court in the land, it would be better to source for information from them, though this would require a subpoena, where a few days of recovery would elicit issues in the relationship.