A Flexible Approach to the Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence

I do not doubt that Rule 702 confides ~ to the judge some gatekeeping responsi~bility in deciding questions of admissibility of proffered expert testimony. But I do not think it " imposes on them either the obligation or the authority to become amateur scientists in order to perform that role. I think the Court would be far better advised in this case to decide only the questions presented, and to leave the further ~:" development of this important area o f the law to future cases. 50 II. ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION This Note will first explore the policy issues underlying the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. Next, it will explain the role of F r y e a n d the effect of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Additionally, it will examine . . . . . 46. ld. at 2799 (Rehnquist, C.3., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The Chief Justice was joined by Justice Stevens. 47. Id. at 2800 (Rehnquist, C.]., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 48. Id. ,= 49. ld. 50. ld. " 1 9 4 hazard Jou l ofZ w : Te mO+tO " • :+ ol. ::71:m+i • . . • . , + , + + + ~ : ~ . ~ • Rules but pr ior to Daubert . + Finally, :this Note will argue that Dauber t i s a significant, " but not revolutionary, ~ step in the evolution+of,:the~law • relating to novel scientific evidence because it represents the official death of the Frye standard. However , wh i l e Daubert offers some guidance to trial j udges~'the ~ for consistency: suggests that further refinements+of the doctrine" based on a more radical approach must be seriously