In this article

Practical Applications of

What is Federal Rule 702?

What is State Rule 702?

Rule of Evidence Standard by State

Understanding Differences in State Admissibility Standards

As a general rule, it is up to the lawyers, not the experts, to determine what evidence must be presented in court to meet a specific jurisdiction’s admissibility standards. That having been said, experts often want to know the requisite standard, as doing so allows them to better prepare for both direct and cross-examination. First, it’s best to understand the differences between Daubert and Frye.

Practical Applications of Daubert and Frye

Under Frye, the scientific community plays a central role in determining evidence admissibility. Under the general acceptance standard, courts consider whether a scientific method or theory has gained general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. Practically speaking, this means that once a methodology has been found generally accepted, subsequent courts may rely on that determination, although admissibility can still be revisited.

Under Daubert, the judge, not the scientific community, is the gatekeeper determining evidence admissibility. Because the factors under Daubert can be reevaluated, and because things such as additional information on error rates or additional peer-reviewed publications may emerge, the court has an ever-changing landscape. This allows for a case-by-case evaluation rather than a single finding of admissibility.

While Frye emphasizes general acceptance, Daubert provides courts with greater flexibility. There is nothing that requires the court to consider all the Daubert factors or requires the court to give more weight to one factor over other factors. In other words, it is up to the court to decide, based on a wide variety of possible factors, including widespread acceptance, whether a certain scientific method or technique is sufficiently reliable to be admissible.

In theory, Daubert permits evidence based on reliable yet not generally accepted methodologies while excluding evidence that relies on an accepted scientific method but produces unreliable conclusions. Conversely, under Frye, newer methods that produce reliable results may be excluded if they have not yet reached the level of general acceptance.

Practically speaking, however, the effect of these differences depends on the jurisdiction, the type of expert testimony, and the circumstances of the case. Both standards require courts to evaluate the foundation of proposed expert testimony, although they approach that evaluation differently.

What is Federal Rule 702?

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, persons qualified as experts based on "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" are permitted to offer expert opinion testimony if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the following conditions have been met:

  • The expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue.
  • The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data.
  • The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods.
  • The expert's opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Federal courts apply Daubert and its subsequent interpretations when evaluating expert testimony under Rule 702.

An important update took effect on December 1, 2023, when amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 clarified the court's gatekeeping responsibility. The revised rule explicitly requires the party offering expert testimony to demonstrate that the admissibility requirements are satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning they are more likely than not to be met.

The amendment also emphasizes that an expert's opinion must reflect a reliable application of the expert's methodology to the facts of the case. This clarification addresses the distinction between questions of admissibility, which judges must resolve, and questions concerning the weight of admitted testimony, which are generally left to the jury.

What is State Rule 702?

Each state also has rules of evidence defining the circumstances under which an expert can testify. In most states, this rule is codified as Rule of Evidence 702, although some jurisdictions use different statutory provisions or case law.

Some states apply Daubert. Other states apply Frye. Other states apply a modified Daubert or Frye standard. Still other states have their own standards of admissibility. Finally, some states use different approaches depending on the type of evidence or proceeding.

These distinctions have continued to evolve. Florida formally adopted Daubert in 2019, Maryland replaced its Frye-Reed standard in 2020, and New Jersey extended a Daubert-type reliability analysis to criminal cases in 2023.

More recently, several states have revised their expert testimony rules to reflect the 2023 federal amendments. Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and South Dakota have adopted similar language, including changes that took effect in 2025 and 2026.

Below is a state-by-state overview of the rules and admissibility standards governing expert testimony, reflecting these developments. The law continues to evolve, and differences may exist based on the type of proceeding, the evidence offered, and the date a rule became effective.

Rule of Evidence Standard by State

Alabama

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Modified Daubert approach for scientific expert testimony under Rule 702(b). Other expert testimony is generally evaluated under Rule 702(a), with exceptions for certain proceedings.

Alaska

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Daubert, adopted in State v. Coon (1999).

Arizona

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Daubert. Arizona amended Rule 702 effective January 1, 2024, to incorporate the updated federal reliability and burden-of-proof language.

Arkansas

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Daubert, adopted in Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Foote (2000).

California

Colorado

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Shreck standard, emphasizing the reliability and relevance of expert testimony. Colorado uses a flexible approach informed by Daubert.

Connecticut

  • Code of Evidence § 7-2
  • Porter / Daubert standard for scientific expert testimony.

District of Columbia

  • Motorola Inc. v. Murray
  • Daubert, adopted in 2016. The District of Columbia applies the federal reliability framework through case law.

Delaware

Florida

  • Florida Statute § 90.702
  • Daubert. The Florida Supreme Court formally adopted the standard in 2019, replacing Frye for expert testimony governed by the amended rule.

Georgia

  • Georgia Code § 24-7-702
  • Daubert. A 2022 amendment extended the standard to criminal proceedings as well as civil proceedings.

Hawaii

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • State-specific reliability standard. Hawaii considers the validity and trustworthiness of scientific evidence and may look to Daubert for guidance without formally adopting it.

Idaho

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • State-specific reliability standard. Idaho courts consider some Daubert factors but have not formally adopted the federal standard.

Illinois

Indiana

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • State-specific reliability standard. Rule 702(b) requires scientific expert testimony to rest on reliable scientific principles, with Daubert factors available as guidance.

Iowa

  • Rule of Evidence 5.702
  • State-specific expert admissibility standard. Iowa courts consider relevance, helpfulness, and reliability without formally adopting the federal Daubert test.

Kansas

Kentucky

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Daubert

Louisiana

  • Code of Evidence Article 702
  • Daubert. Louisiana amended Article 702 in 2024 to incorporate language consistent with the 2023 federal Rule 702 amendments.

Maine

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • State-specific reliability standard under State v. Williams, 388 A.2d 500 (Me. 1978), and Searles v. Fleetwood Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc., 878 A.2d 509 (Me. 2005). Maine has not formally adopted Daubert or Frye.

Maryland

  • Rule of Evidence 5-702
  • Daubert, adopted in Rochkind v. Stevenson (2020), replacing the former Frye-Reed standard.

Massachusetts

  • Rule of Evidence 702, as described in the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence
  • Daubert / Lanigan standard. Courts may establish reliability through general acceptance or a broader reliability analysis.

Michigan

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Daubert. Michigan amended Rule 702 effective May 1, 2024, incorporating the updated federal language on the burden of proof and reliable application.

Minnesota

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Modified Frye / Mack standard, requiring general acceptance for novel scientific evidence and foundational reliability for expert testimony.

Mississippi

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Daubert, as applied through Mississippi Transportation Commission v. McLemore (2003).

Missouri

  • Missouri Revised Statute § 490.065
  • Daubert-based standard for most proceedings. Certain proceedings, including specified family, juvenile, and probate matters, remain subject to different requirements.

Montana

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Modified Daubert approach for novel scientific evidence, with other expert testimony generally evaluated under the state's traditional admissibility framework.

Nebraska

Nevada

  • Nevada Revised Statute § 50.275
  • State-specific reliability standard under Hallmark v. Eldridge (2008). Nevada courts may consider Daubert factors but have not formally adopted the standard.

New Hampshire

  • Rule of Evidence 702 and RSA 516:29-a
  • Daubert, with statutory reliability factors governing scientific expert testimony.

New Jersey

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Modified Daubert approach for civil and criminal cases. New Jersey adopted a Daubert-type standard for civil cases in In re Accutane Litigation (2018) and extended a similar reliability analysis to criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings in State v. Olenowski (2023).

New Mexico

  • Rule of Evidence 11-702
  • Daubert / Alberico standard for scientific expert testimony. New Mexico abandoned Frye in State v. Alberico (1993) but maintains its own approach to reliability, particularly for non-scientific expertise.

New York

  • Civil Practice Law and Rules 4515, alongside applicable case law
  • Frye, focusing on general acceptance of novel scientific methodologies. Courts also consider whether accepted methodologies have been properly applied to the facts.

North Carolina

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Daubert, incorporated through statutory amendments effective in 2011 and confirmed in State v. McGrady (2016).

North Dakota

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • State-specific admissibility standard. In State v. Hernandez (2005), the North Dakota Supreme Court declined to adopt Daubert, retaining the state's approach under Rule 702.

Ohio

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • State-specific reliability standard incorporating Daubert-influenced principles. Ohio amended Rule 702 effective July 1, 2024, to clarify the burden of proof and require reliable application of expert methodologies.

Oklahoma

  • Oklahoma Statute § 12-2702
  • Daubert. Oklahoma updated its expert testimony statute effective September 1, 2025, to incorporate the more-likely-than-not standard and revised reliability language.

Oregon

Pennsylvania

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Frye, requiring generally accepted methodologies in the relevant scientific community.

Rhode Island

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • State-specific reliability standard under DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Co. (1999), drawing on Daubert principles without formally adopting the federal framework.

South Carolina

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Jones / Council standard. South Carolina uses its own reliability analysis, considering the qualifications of the expert, the reliability of the underlying science, and whether the testimony will assist the trier of fact.

South Dakota

Tennessee

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • McDaniel standard. Tennessee uses a reliability analysis informed by Daubert but governed by its own Rules 702 and 703.

Texas

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Robinson / Kelly standards. Texas applies Daubert-influenced reliability principles, with different analytical frameworks for civil and criminal cases.

Utah

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • State-specific reliability standard incorporating elements of both Daubert and Frye. General acceptance satisfies the rule's threshold reliability requirement, but it is not the only permissible basis for establishing reliability.

Vermont

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Daubert

Virginia

  • Rule of Evidence 2:702 and Virginia Code § 8.01-401.3
  • State-specific expert admissibility standard. Virginia evaluates qualifications, relevance, and reliability without formally adopting Daubert as its governing test.

Washington

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Frye, particularly for novel scientific evidence, along with Rule 702 requirements governing expert qualifications and helpfulness.

West Virginia

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Daubert / Wilt standard for scientific evidence, with distinctions depending on the nature and novelty of the proposed testimony.

Wisconsin

  • Wisconsin Statute § 907.02
  • Daubert. Wisconsin amended § 907.02 through 2025 Wisconsin Act 92, effective March 8, 2026, to clarify that the proponent must demonstrate reliability by a preponderance of the evidence and that the expert's opinion reflects reliable application of the methodology. The amendment applies to actions and special proceedings commenced on or after its effective date.

Wyoming

  • Rule of Evidence 702
  • Daubert, applied through Wyoming case law, including Bunting v. Jamieson (1999).

Understanding Differences in State Admissibility Standards

While some states, such as Minnesota and Utah, specifically incorporate general acceptance into their expert testimony framework, other jurisdictions focus on a broader assessment of reliability.

The distinction is not always a simple choice between Daubert and Frye. Some states use standards that incorporate elements of both, while others have developed independent frameworks through statutes, rules, and judicial decisions. Recent changes also demonstrate that states may adopt portions of the federal Rule 702 framework without adopting every aspect of federal case law.

The 2023 amendments to Federal Rule 702, along with subsequent state-level updates through 2026, reinforce the importance of understanding not only an expert's qualifications but also the factual basis, methodology, and application underlying proposed testimony.

Whether a state applies Daubert or Frye, a combination of both, or a modification of one or the other, the duty of the expert remains the same: to provide testimony grounded in sufficient expertise, reliable methods, and an accurate application of those methods to the facts of the case.

For attorneys and experts alike, understanding the applicable admissibility standard remains an important part of preparing expert testimony for litigation.

References

[1]Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

[2]Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

[3]Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as amended effective December 1, 2023.

[4]In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, 278 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 2019).

[5]Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020).

[6]State v. Olenowski, 253 N.J. 133 (2023).

[7]2025 Wisconsin Act 92, amending Wisconsin Statute § 907.02.

[8]South Dakota Codified Law § 19-19-702, amended effective March 31, 2026.