Freye v.

Us

Issue of the Case;

A case discussing the admissibility of systolic blood pressure deception test as evidence.

Facts:

Appellant Freye was charged with and put to trial for murder. At his trial, Freye attempted
to call an expert witness to testify that he had taken a systolic blood pressure deception
test, and to further testify as to the results of the test. The expert testimony was held
inadmissible by the lower court, Appellant was convinced of second-degree murder.

Arguments:

Appellant- Frye’s counsel sought to introduce an expert who would testify as to a “systolic
blood pressure deception test” that the expert performed on Frye. The test would allegedly
show whether Frye was lying when he testified because blood pressure allegedly rises when
person lies but stays the same when the person told the truth.

Court- The court reasoned that although the deception test issue here has a scientific basis
“just when scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between experimental and
demonstrable stages is difficult to define…and the thing from which the deduction is made
must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in
which it belongs to be admissible.

In other words, the court held that without an established place in science, the test was still
in the blurred realm between experimental science and demonstrated science and therefore
inadmissible. In the courts words as the deception test was not “sufficiently established,”
the testimony related to it is inadmissible, and the lower court was correct to have excluded
it.

Ruling:

When a test (such as systolic blood pressure deception test) has not gained scientific
recognition from psychological and physiological authorities, expert testimony regarding
the results of such as test is inadmissible.