Maryland Abandons the Frye-Reed Standard for Admissibility of Expert Testimony and Adopts Daubert(SEPTEMBER 25, 2020) - Over 40 years ago, in the case of Reed v. State, Maryland adopted the general acceptance standard for admitting expert testimony rooted in novel scientific principles. 283 Md. 374 (1978). Under this standard, expert testimony rooted in novel scientific principles was admissible only if the basis of the opinion was generally accepted as reliable within the relevant scientific community. This standard was commonly called the Frye-Reed standard. In the years that followed, and with the adoption of Maryland Rule 5-702, this standard morphed into what was known as the “Frye-Reed Plus” standard. Under this morphed standard, the trial court was tasked with: (1) determining whether the expert’s principles and methods were generally accepted, and then (2) assessing whether the expert’s testimony had an adequate supply of data and applied a reliable methodology. In Rochkind v. Stevenson, the Maryland Court of Appeals abandoned the Frye-Reed standard in favor of the Daubert standard for admissibility of expert testimony. 2020 Md. LEXIS 414 (August 28, 2020). Under the Daubert standard, an expert’s testimony is admissible only if it is sufficiently reliable. To assist the trial courts in assessing the reliability of expert testimony, the Court adopted ten non-exhaustive factors: (1) Tested/testable—whether the theory or technique can be (and has been) tested; The extent to which this change in jurisprudence will have a practical impact on the admissibility of expert testimony is widely debated and remains to be seen. The Court of Appeals was “[not] convinced that adopting this standard in Maryland will upend Maryland evidence law.” Id. at *46. Regardless, the Rochkind opinion provides clear guidance as to what factors litigants, attorneys, and experts, should consider in assessing the admissibility of expert testimony. - (DeCaro, Doran, Siciliano, Gallagher & DeBlasis) |