Frye v. United States, 3968.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Citation293 F. 1013
Decision Date03 December 1923
PartiesFRYE v. UNITED STATES.
Docket Number3968.

293 F. 1013

FRYE
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 3968.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.

December 3, 1923


Submitted November 7, 1923.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Richard V. Mattingly and Foster Wood, both of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Peyton Gordon and J. H. Bilbrey, both of Washington, D.C., for the United States.

Before SMYTH, Chief Justice, VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice, and MARTIN, presiding Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

Appellant, defendant below, was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree, and from the judgment prosecutes this appeal.

A single assignment of error is presented for our consideration. In the course of the trial counsel for defendant offered an expert witness to testify to the result of a deception test made upon defendant. The test is described as the systolic blood pressure deception test. It is asserted that blood pressure is influenced by change in the emotions of the witness, and that the systolic blood pressure rises are brought about by nervous impulses sent to the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system. Scientific experiments, it is claimed, have demonstrated that fear, rage, and pain always produce a rise of systolic blood pressure, and that conscious deception or falsehood, concealment of facts, or guilt of crime, accompanied by fear of detection when the person is under examination, raises the systolic blood pressure in a curve, which corresponds exactly to the struggle going on in the subject's mind, between fear and attempted control of that fear, as the examination [293 F. 1014.] touches the vital points in respect of which he is attempting to deceive the examiner.

In other words, the theory seems to be that truth is spontaneous, and comes without conscious effort, while the utterance of a falsehood requires a conscious effort, which is reflected in the blood pressure. The rise thus produced is easily detected and distinguished from the rise produced by mere fear of the examination itself. In the former instance, the pressure rises higher than in the latter, and is more pronounced as the examination proceeds, while in the latter case, if the subject is telling the truth, the pressure registers highest at the beginning of the examination, and gradually diminishes as the examination proceeds.

Prior to the trial defendant was subjected to this deception...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4245 practice notes
  • Nelson v. Sec'y, Case No: 2:11-cv-327-Ftm-29CM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • August 20, 2014
    ...testimony should have been excluded and that the State's failure to satisfy the test for admissibility set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) does not implicate "due process or any other federal constitutional principle[.]" (Doc. 47 at 40). Accordingly, argues Resp......
  • U.S. v. Brown, No. 76-1576
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 16, 1977
    ...established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs." Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (1923). In United States v. Franks, 511 F.2d 25, 33 n. 12 (6th Cir. 1975), we equated general acceptance in the scientific community with a sh......
  • Gavin v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • September 26, 2003
    ...was not qualified as an expert in blood-spatter analysis, and (2) the State failed to lay a predicate under either Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), or Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 One of the main points of cont......
  • U.S. v. Rodriguez, No. 07-1316.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • September 22, 2009
    ...538 F.3d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 2008). Daubert holds that Fed.R.Evid. 702 supersedes the expert witness standard of Frye v. United States 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786. 581 F.3d 794 If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4279 cases
  • Nelson v. Sec'y, Case No: 2:11-cv-327-Ftm-29CM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • August 20, 2014
    ...testimony should have been excluded and that the State's failure to satisfy the test for admissibility set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) does not implicate "due process or any other federal constitutional principle[.]" (Doc. 47 at 40). Accordingly, argues Resp......
  • U.S. v. Brown, No. 76-1576
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 16, 1977
    ...established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs." Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (1923). In United States v. Franks, 511 F.2d 25, 33 n. 12 (6th Cir. 1975), we equated general acceptance in the scientific community with a sh......
  • Gavin v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • September 26, 2003
    ...was not qualified as an expert in blood-spatter analysis, and (2) the State failed to lay a predicate under either Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), or Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 One of the main points of cont......
  • U.S. v. Rodriguez, No. 07-1316.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • September 22, 2009
    ...538 F.3d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 2008). Daubert holds that Fed.R.Evid. 702 supersedes the expert witness standard of Frye v. United States 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786. 581 F.3d 794 If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
5 books & journal articles
  • Clothes Don’t Maketh the Man Nor a Criminal Profiler an Expert Witness
    • United States
    • International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology Nbr. 64-12, September 2020
    • September 1, 2020
    ...v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. 509 U.S. 579 Supreme Court of U.S.A. 1993.Folkes v. Chadd (1782) 3 Doug KB 157.Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, D.C. Cir. 1923.General Electric Company v. Joiner. 522 U.S. 136. Supreme Court of U.S.A. 1997. 1340 International Journal of Offender Therap......
  • Getting Away With Murder
    • United States
    • Homicide Studies Nbr. 20-1, February 2016
    • February 1, 2016
    ...crime: Theoretical and practical issues in behavioural profiling (3rd ed., pp. 141-164). Boston, MA: Andersen. Frye v. United States. 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).Geberth, V. (1996, February). The staged crime scene. Law and Order Magazine, 44(2), 89-92.Geberth, V. (2006). Practical homicid......
  • Can Molecular Genetic Evidence Influence Jurors’ Perceptions of a Defendant? Results From a Randomized Experiment
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice and Behavior Nbr. 44-8, August 2017
    • August 1, 2017
    ...of associa-tion studies of the 5HTTLPR and MAOA-uVNTR. Behavior Genetics, 44, 427-444. doi:10.1007/s10519-014-9661-yFrye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (1923).Fuss, J., Dressing, H., & Briken, P. (2015). Neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom: A randomised controlled trial with German judges......
  • The Effects of Ideology on Federal Trial Judges' Decisions to Admit Scientific Expert Testimony
    • United States
    • American Politics Research Nbr. 35-5, September 2007
    • September 1, 2007
    ...defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations.American Journal of Political Science, 26, 797-833.Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (1923).Galanter, M. (1974). Why the “Haves” come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legalchange. Law and Society Review, 9, 95-160.Gat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT