The broad issue here is differential diagnosis v. differential etiology. Basically, doctors should not testify as to how an injury occurred. Their expertise is limited to and so should their testimony be limited to diagnosing the injury. The opinion is very well written and provides a pretty good road map of how the lawyers attached the testimony. It has broad implications. Both the opinion and the filings are attached.
Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents.
Argument: The Daubert standard is superior to Frye for ensuring the reliability of expert evidence and preventing wrongful convictions. Unlike Frye, expert testimony under Daubert must be based on more than “pure opinion.” Unlike Frye, which is limited to considering the expert’s methodology, Daubert evaluates the reliability of an expert’s methodology, reasoning and opinions. Unlike Daubert, which applies to all expert testimony, Frye only applies to “new or novel” scientific techniques. A number of unreliable forensic techniques are admitted under Frye because they are no longer new or novel. The Frye standard, which measures general acceptance by the insular community in question, exacerbates the problem of junk science.