The procedural law for admissibility of expert witness testimony in both criminal and civil cases is not equitable in the states of Florida and New York. The New York venue subscribes to a more recent and liberal rule, known as the Daubert standard. Florida courts rely on an older and less liberal method of determining the admissibility of expert witness testimony known as, the Frye standard. Substantive law is affected because there is a greater likelihood that persons in a New York trial would have a better opportunity to present challenges in the admissibility of expert witness testimony, then in Florida. There is also an indication that application of the Daubert standard may help in the admissibility decisions pertaining to social science cases more so than the Frye standard. For the equity of admissibility in expert witness testimony to be adjusted requires a ruling by the Unites States Supreme Court of legislation by the federal government. The consideration that the Daubert standard is more effective than the Frye standard in challenging admissibility of expert witness testimony will require additional research to expand the sample population currently too small for a definitive conclusion.
展开▼
