Abstract
Illinois courts continue to apply the general acceptance test announced in Frye v. United States, as opposed to the Daubert approach used by the federal courts, to determine the admissibility of expert evidence. This article reviews both standards and argues that Illinois should abandon the Frye test in favor of the current federal admissibility standard laid out in the line of cases beginning with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The recent Illinois Supreme Court decision in People v. McKown demonstrates the flaws of the current Frye analysis. The case fails, however, to adequately draw boundaries between “novel scientific evidence” and evidence generally. It also highlights both the problems of defining “general acceptance” for Frye purposes and the problems of using expert testimony, past judicial decisions, or technical writings to determine if scientific evidence is generally accepted. The Daubert test provides a superior alternative to the Frye admissibility test. It tests the reliability of all evidence, both scientific and non-scientific, and provides a more objective method of determining reliability that is not reliant on only one indicator of reliability. It is also more responsive to changes in the reliability of evidence due to advances in research.
Recommended Citation
Paul A. Rodrigues,
Toward a New Standard for the Admission of Expert Evidence in Illinois: A Critique of the Frye General Acceptance Test and an Argument for the Adoption of Daubert,
34
S. Ill. U. L.J.
289
(2010).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol34/iss2/3