Abstract
Appellate opinions were evaluated on variables related to expert admissibility to assess the effects of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in criminal cases. Analysis reveals changes in appellate courts' consideration of Frye v. United States, the 4 Daubert criteria, and several Federal Rules of Evidence. The importance of Frye and the general acceptance criterion decreased over time, and the importance of the Daubert criteria increased over time. However, these changes were not consistent for all types of testimony. Overall, there is greater reliance on Daubert when determining the admissibility of a scientific expert. However, only criteria related to the Federal Rules of Evidence are reliably related to admissibility decisions. Details of appellate court application of the 4 Daubert criteria, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and other related factors are discussed.