Which statement best contrasts Frye and Daubert standards?

• A. Frye: general acceptance; Daubert: scientific validity determined by judge.
• B. Frye: general acceptance; Daubert: peer review requirement.
• C. Frye: evidence reliability based on juror opinion.
• D. Frye and Daubert are the same standard.

Answer: (A)

In this contrast, the key idea is how courts decide if a scientific method is admissible. Frye uses general acceptance in the scientific community as the gatekeeper criterion: if the technique is widely accepted, it can be admitted. Daubert changes the gatekeeping role to the judge, who must evaluate the method itself for scientific validity and proper application in the case, considering multiple factors such as whether the method is testable, measures error, has peer-reviewed support, and follows standards.

That makes the statement pairing Frye with general acceptance and Daubert with judicial determination of scientific validity the best fit. It captures the shift from relying on broad consensus to requiring the court to assess the method’s validity more directly.

The other options don’t fit because they suggest requirements that aren’t accurate under Daubert—peer review is not an absolute requirement, the reliability isn’t judged by jurors, and Frye and Daubert are not the same standard.