“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” As technology and science advance with increasing speed and scope, courts are tasked with increasingly difficult determinations on admissibility of evidence. Using in-court experts to explain scientific methods has become necessary; however, this necessity carries the risk of tainting judges and juries with unreliable “junk science.” This problem demands a standard to balance the need for expert testimony against the corresponding risk of deception.
Over ninety years ago, in Frye v. United States, this demand was recognized. The court stated that “[s]omewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principal must be recognized.” The Frye court held that novel scientific evidence must be “generally accepted” in its particular field to be admissible. Seventy years later, the United States Supreme Court rejected Frye as the appropriate test for federal courts and established the Daubert standard. This factor- based standard directs judges, as gatekeepers, to determine the reliability and relevance of the testimony.
Minnesota courts presently stand in opposition to the majority of states, which have adopted the Daubert standard. Minnesota instead adheres to its own Frye-Mack test. However, amid continuing controversy and partisan lobbying, the Minnesota Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence is currently soliciting input on whether to amend or abandon the Frye-Mack standard.
Part II of this Note examines the history of the Frye and Daubert standards, focusing on the evolution of Minnesota’s Frye-Mack standard. Part III analyzes Minnesota’s Frye-Mack standard and identifies areas in which Frye-Mack has been inconsistently applied. In Part IV, this Note considers possible changes to Frye-Mack. Part V concludes that Minnesota courts would benefit from changes to Frye-Mack that clarify its application while retaining its uniform and deferential qualities.