Frye v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 December 1923 |
| Docket Number | 3968. |
| Citation | 293 F. 1013 |
| Parties | FRYE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
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.
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 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Miller
...standard for judicial recognition of the probative value of scientific evidence has been carefully delineated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.App.1923): 'Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult t......
-
State v. Carlson, No. 30419-8-II (WA 5/10/2006)
...the relevant scientific community. State v. Jones, 130 Wn.2d 302, 306-07, 922 P.2d 806 (1996). The test is named after Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). 17. We note that Carol does not argue that her reaction at her arrest was not relevant. We therefore express no opinion......
-
People v. Daveggio
...decision of a federal district court that had reportedly concluded that fingerprint identification by certain experts did not pass the Kelly / Frye standard for general acceptance of scientific evidence. (See People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 30, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240 ( Kelly ......
-
People v. Guerra
...the issue was governed by the Kelly-Frye rule (People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240, Frye v. United States (D.C.Cir.1923) 293 F. 1013), i.e., that evidence based on a new scientific technique is admissible only on a showing that it is generally accepted as r......
-
50-State Survey of State Court Decisions Supporting Expert-Related Judicial Gatekeeping
...analog would comport with relevant precedent. District of Columbia The District of Columbia − formerly home of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) – is now a thoroughgoing judicial gatekeeping jurisdiction where expert witnesses are concerned. See Motorola Inc. v. Murray, 14......
-
Recent Developments in Environmental Law in Indiana
...caused birth defects. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision by Justice Blackmun, rejected the prevailing test under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) concerning the admissibility of scientific evidence. Under Frye, which concerned the admissibility of polygraph evidence, t......
-
Is QEEG Evidence Admissible To Show A Brain Injury? A Washington State Court Says No
...scientific community for the purpose of diagnosing traumatic brain injuries, and was therefore inadmissible under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (1923). Applying Frye, courts throughout the country have excluded qEEG evidence in the context of alleged brain trauma. For example, the Flor......
-
Is QEEG Evidence Admissible To Show A Brain Injury? A Washington State Court Says No
...scientific community for the purpose of diagnosing traumatic brain injuries, and was therefore inadmissible under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (1923). Applying Frye, courts throughout the country have excluded qEEG evidence in the context of alleged brain trauma. For example, the Flor......
-
Governmental documents
...101 Parker v. James A. Granger, Inc ., 298 U.S. 644 (1935); see also Hercules Powder Co. v. Di Sabatino , 188 A.2d 529 (Del. 1963). 102 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). 103 East St. Louis School District No. 189 v. Hayes , 178 Ill. Dec. 301, 604 N.E.2d 557 (Ill. App. 5 Dist. 1992); Sabag v. Co......
-
Basics of Demonstrative Evidence
...because the architect was not listed on the plaintiffs’ witness list and was not subject to examination by city. 24 54 App.D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923). 25 See §11.601. 26 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993). See also Kumho Tire Co., Ltd., et al. v. Carmichael et al., 526 U.S. 137 (199......
-
Commonly Used Experts
...calls were made by the defendant. The California Supreme Court reversed the conviction relying on Frye v. U.S. (D.C. Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013 in which the court held that, faced with a novel method of proof, courts require a preliminary showing of general acceptance of the new technique in th......
-
Internal Pictures
...his conclusions went to the weight, not the admissibility, of his opinion. Diamond R. Fertilizer v. Davis, 567 So.2d 451 (Fla. 1990). 14 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923); it should be noted that the Frye test, a strict one, is not without its critics. The test makes it difficult for the use of ......
-
Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 48, No. 03. January 20, 2018
...Penn- sylvania’s adherence to the test to determine the admissi- bility of expert evidence first established in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) and adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. 369 A.2d 1277 (Pa. 1977). Given the potential complexity when ......
-
Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 47, No. 03. January 21, 2017
...Pennsylvania’s adherence to the test to determine the admissibility of expert evidence first established in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (App. D.C. 1923) and adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Topa, 369 A.2d 1277 (Pa. 1977). Given the potential complexity whe......
-
Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 47, No. 40. October 7, 2017
...Pennsylvania’s adherence to the test to determine the admissibility of expert evidence first established in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) and adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Topa, 369 A.2d 1277 (Pa. 1977). Given the potential complexity whe......
-
Chapter 7, SB 13; Chapter 7 – DNA EVIDENCE IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL TRIALS
...to the admissibility of scientific evidence in a criminal or civil action, a principle first enunciated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) and adopted for the courts of this state in Pulakis v. State, 476 P.2d 474, 478 (Alaska 1970). In its place, the legislature opts to......