Which standard is based on legal precedent regarding the admissibility of scientific examinations or experiments?

The Frye Standard is based on legal precedent and focuses on the admissibility of scientific examinations or experiments in court. Established in 1923 through the case Frye v. United States, this standard dictates that scientific evidence must be sufficiently established and accepted within the relevant scientific community to be considered admissible in court. According to this standard, if the methodology or techniques employed do not have widespread acceptance among experts in the field, the evidence may be deemed inadmissible.

This principle emphasizes the importance of peer validation within the scientific community and serves to ensure that only reliable and proven scientific techniques underlie evidence presented during legal proceedings. The Frye Standard has been influential in shaping how courts interact with scientific evidence and has been used as a benchmark for determining its reliability and relevance.

In contrast, the Daubert Standard, which evolved later, is more flexible and focuses on the reliability and relevance based on the specific circumstances of the evidence and its methodology, which may include factors like testability, peer review, and error rates. The Hearsay Rule and the Expert Testimony Rule deal with different aspects of law regarding witness statements and the qualifications of experts, respectively, rather than the foundational scientific acceptance necessary for evidence admissibility.