The essential fallacy of the Frye test--also known as the general acceptance test--is that it forces the courts to decide the admissibility of scientific testimony by counting heads. In turn, this can lead to both the admission of untrustworthy evidence and the exclusion of valid evidence. For example, if enough biased experts are willing to vouch for a theory, even an unproven, invalid theory can satisfy the terms of the test. On the other hand, the most brilliant researcher in the world can validate a theory by an impeccably designed experiment, yet the court cannot admit his testimony until the theory passes the popularity contest of "general acceptance" by the scientist's peers. This, in part, explains the continuous battles that take place in U.S. courts over the admissibility of DNA-based evidence. In Britain, where the courts have never followed a general acceptance rule, courts routinely admit DNA-based evidence.
Despite the ...
