What are the Daubert and Frye standards for expert testimony?

• A. Frye assesses general acceptance; Daubert evaluates testability, peer review, error rates, and reliability.
• B. Frye is about error rates; Daubert about general acceptance.
• C. Frye and Daubert are identical.
• D. Neither relates to reliability.

Answer: (A)

Frye and Daubert set the rules for when expert testimony based on scientific methods can be admitted in court. Frye focuses on general acceptance: a method or theory must be broadly accepted by the relevant scientific community to be admissible. Daubert broadens the gatekeeping role of judges and asks whether the technique is scientifically valid, evaluating factors such as whether it is testable or falsifiable, whether it has undergone peer review and publication, the reliability evidenced by known or potential error rates, and the presence of standards controlling the technique, along with general acceptance as part of the overall assessment.

So, Frye is about broad communal acceptance, while Daubert adds a structured reliability review with multiple criteria. The other statements misstate these roles or treat them as identical, which is why they aren’t correct.