Daubert c. Merrell Dow PharmaceuticalsJurisprudence and Forensic ScienceJurisprudence and Forensic ScienceThe Frye standard was the basis by which expert testimony was introduced into the federal courts until the Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals in 1993. The Daubert standard would replace the Frye standard in the Federal Court. Although the state would not be held to this standard, it would follow suit by looking to federal case law in decisions involving expert testimony. "If scientific or technical knowledge can assist the finder of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact, "a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify under the form of an opinion" (A. Maskin, 1998). The case basically made all evidence deemed reliable, relevant to a case, admissible under the Daubert standard. The use and acceptability of the Daubert standard in place of the Frye standard previously used for expert evidence applications have made it possible to present less academically accepted scientific evidence, such as skin evidence of friction ridges, in federal court cases, while that the Frye standard would have excluded the use of skin evidence of friction ridges as not being widely or commonly accepted in the general field from which it was derived. they were obtained and acceptable in the scientific field to which they related (A. Schwartz, 1997). In Frye v. United States, the accused was subjected to a deception test that determined his guilt or innocence using his systolic blood pressure levels. An expert witness was presented to explain......middle of document......c., on expert testimony with applications to. Florida Bar, Volume LXXIII (3). Maskin, A. and Cailteux, K. (March 1998). The Supreme Court sets the standard of review for Daubert decisions and reaffirms the district court. Retrieved from Weil website: http://www.weil.com/news/pubdetail.aspx?pub=3467Mcroberts, A. (1998). Is identifying friction ridges a science? The Print, 14(1), 4-5. Rice, PR and Delker, EW (2000). American University Washington College of LawShort story of too few consequences. Unpublished manuscript, American University Washington College of Law, Washington, DC. Schwartz, A. (1997). Harvard Journal of A “Dogma of Empiricism” Revisited: Daubert and Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the Need to Resurrect the Philological Insight of Frye V. United States. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 10(2).