Which ruling superseded the Frye ruling on expert evidence?

The ruling that superseded the Frye standard on expert evidence is the Daubert ruling. The Frye standard, established in 1923, allowed for the admission of expert testimony based on whether the methods or scientific principles were generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. However, the Daubert ruling, which arose from a 1993 case, introduced a more flexible and comprehensive standard for determining the admissibility of expert witness testimony.

Under the Daubert standard, judges are now expected to act as gatekeepers to assess the relevance and reliability of expert evidence. This includes evaluating factors such as the testability of the expert's theories or techniques, the extent to which they have been subjected to peer review and publication, their known or potential error rate, and the general acceptance of the methods within the relevant scientific community. By adopting this more rigorous criterion, the Daubert ruling emphasized a greater focus on the scientific validity of the testimony, moving away from the traditional reliance on general acceptance.

Thus, Daubert represents a significant evolution in the legal standards governing expert evidence, aimed at ensuring that the testimony presented in court is not only relevant but also scientifically sound.