Next month, two motions filed by the defense will be heard by Judge Perry. Because they are very important Frye issues, and of extreme importance to the defense, this post will focus on the motion about chloroform evidence. It will be in two parts.
PART I - The Frye Pan
Casey Anthony's defense recently filed two Frye motions. The date reflects when they were filed with the Clerk of Courts. Both are stamped 12/30/2010. MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO FRYE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE (CHLOROFORM)
and
MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (Plant or root growth evidence)
The state filed motions to strike, but today, I will just focus on the issue over chloroform. The other motions (defense and state) will come later, because in this particular one, there's much to discern, including a few errors. I will get to them, but first of all, what, exactly, is a Frye motion/hearing? Frye motions are generally held in limine, which means they are made before a trial starts. The judge then decides whether certain evidence may or may not be introduced to the jury. The Frye standard is a test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence in legal proceedings. This standard comes from the case Frye v. United States (293 F. 1013 (DC Cir 1923) District of Columbia Circuit Court in 1923. Frye v. U.S. was a groundbreaking case that argueded the admissibility of polygraph tests as evidence in a trial. Today, it's designed to prevent both sides from unfairly exploiting expert testimony. Its intent is to assure that expert evidence is reliable.
