29 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Reed v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Reed, 283 Md. at 381, 389 , 391 A.2d at 368, 372 ; see also Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 433 Md. 137, 149-50 , 70 A.3d 328, 335 (2013) (“A Frye/Reed analysis is required, as a prerequisite to the application of Rule 5-702, only when the proposed expert testimony involves a ‘novel scientific method,’ in which event there must be some assurance that the novel method has gained general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.”). 2020See Reed, 283 Md. at 381, 389 , 391 A.2d at 368, 372 ; see also Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 433 Md. 137, 149-50 , 70 A.3d 328, 335 (2013) (“A Frye/Reed analysis is required, as a prerequisite to the application of Rule 5-702, only when the proposed expert testimony involves a ‘novel scientific method,’ in which event there must be some assurance that the novel method has gained general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.”). | 6 | 13 |
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences1999ADMISSIBILITY OF POST-HYPNOTIC TESTIMONY This Court holds that, because Ms. Wallech’s change in memory came after she was hypnotized, under the Frye/Reed test, see Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923) and Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 (1978), that there is insufficient scientific proof that her post-hypnotic memory is reliable. 1999The Frye/Reed standard refers to the principles articulated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923) and Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 (1978). 3 . | 3 | 10 |
Blackwell v. Wyethgreen2 sentences2018The case reached the Court of Appeals, which framed the "essence" of the issue before it as whether the Frye - Reed test applies "to the analysis undertaken by an expert where the underlying data and methods for gathering this data are generally accepted in the scientific community but applied to support a novel theory" of medical causation. 408 Md. at 596 , 971 A.2d 235 . 2018The case reached the Court of Appeals, which framed the "essence" of the issue before it as whether the Frye - Reed test applies "to the analysis undertaken by an expert where the underlying data and methods for gathering this data are generally accepted in the scientific community but applied to support a novel theory" of medical causation. 408 Md. at 596 , 971 A.2d 235 . | 3 | 5 |
Schultz v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Kelley v. State , 288 Md. 298 , 302, 418 A.2d 217 (1980) (applying Frye - Reed general acceptance test to hold that "testimony which directly or indirectly conveys the results of [a polygraph] test[ ] should not be admitted"); State v. Collins , 296 Md. 670 , 464 A.2d 1028 (1983) (applying Frye - Reed test to hold that expert opinion about hypnotically enhanced witness testimony is inadmissible); U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore , 336 Md. 145 , 182-83, 647 A.2d 405 (1994) (applying Frye - Reed test to hold that surface dust sampling to determine asbestos contamination 2018App. 145 , 664 A.2d 60 (1995) (holding that the Frye - Reed test does apply to horizontal gaze nystagmus field sobriety tests, and taking judicial notice of the general acceptance of those tests); Keene Corp., Inc. v. Hall , 96 Md. | 2 | 3 |
Dixon v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2020See Reed, 283 Md. at 381, 389 , 391 A.2d at 368, 372 ; see also Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 433 Md. 137, 149-50 , 70 A.3d 328, 335 (2013) (“A Frye/Reed analysis is required, as a prerequisite to the application of Rule 5-702, only when the proposed expert testimony involves a ‘novel scientific method,’ in which event there must be some assurance that the novel method has gained general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.”). 2020See Reed, 283 Md. at 381, 389 , 391 A.2d at 368, 372 ; see also Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 433 Md. 137, 149-50 , 70 A.3d 328, 335 (2013) (“A Frye/Reed analysis is required, as a prerequisite to the application of Rule 5-702, only when the proposed expert testimony involves a ‘novel scientific method,’ in which event there must be some assurance that the novel method has gained general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.”). | 2 | 2 |
Addison v. Stategreen2 sentences2018App. 165 , 181, 981 A.2d 698 (2009) (declining to address a Frye - Reed issue raised on appeal and observing that "the grounds for the objection were vague. 2018App. 165 , 180, 981 A.2d 698 (2009) ("[W]e ... review the record and independently apply the Frye / Reed test de novo."). | 2 | 2 |
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Millergreen2 sentences2018App. at 186 , 858 A.2d 1025 , was not subject to the Frye - Reed test. *715 A doctor's opinion as to the etiology of his patient's arthritis is simply not the type of thing contemplated by the phrase 'new and novel scientific technique.' *897 What is contemplated are new, and arguably questionable, techniques such as lie detector tests, breathalyzer tests, paraffin tests, DNA identification, voiceprint identification, as in the Reed case itself, and the use of polarized light microscopy to identify asbestos fibers .... 2018App. 123 , 858 A.2d 1025 (2004), cert. granted , 384 Md. 581 , 865 A.2d 589 , cert. dismissed , 387 Md. 351 , 875 A.2d 702 (2005), the judge concluded that the medical causation opinions being offered by the Allens' expert witnesses were not of the type requiring a Frye - Reed analysis. | 1 | 5 |
Savage v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Since we adopted the Frye standard in Reed v. State , we have often had the occasion to elaborate on the development and application of the Frye - Reed standard. *252 Savage v. State , 455 Md. 138 , 157-58, 166 A.3d 183 (2017). 2018Since we adopted the Frye standard in Reed v. State , we have often had the occasion to elaborate on the development and application of the Frye - Reed standard. *252 Savage v. State , 455 Md. 138 , 157-58, 166 A.3d 183 (2017). | 1 | 3 |
United States Gypsum Co. v. Mayor of Baltimoregreen2 sentences2018See Kelley v. State , 288 Md. 298 , 302, 418 A.2d 217 (1980) (applying Frye - Reed general acceptance test to hold that "testimony which directly or indirectly conveys the results of [a polygraph] test[ ] should not be admitted"); State v. Collins , 296 Md. 670 , 464 A.2d 1028 (1983) (applying Frye - Reed test to hold that expert opinion about hypnotically enhanced witness testimony is inadmissible); U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore , 336 Md. 145 , 182-83, 647 A.2d 405 (1994) (applying Frye - Reed test to hold that surface dust sampling to determine asbestos contamination 2018See Kelley v. State , 288 Md. 298 , 302, 418 A.2d 217 (1980) (applying Frye - Reed general acceptance test to hold that "testimony which directly or indirectly conveys the results of [a polygraph] test[ ] should not be admitted"); State v. Collins , 296 Md. 670 , 464 A.2d 1028 (1983) (applying Frye - Reed test to hold that expert opinion about hypnotically enhanced witness testimony is inadmissible); U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore , 336 Md. 145 , 182-83, 647 A.2d 405 (1994) (applying Frye - Reed test to hold that surface dust sampling to determine asbestos contamination | 1 | 3 |
Clemons v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Assuming *457 without deciding that the Allens's proposed expert witness testimony that medical causation exists in fact was subject to a Frye - Reed analysis to be admissible, we nevertheless hold that *870 the trial court did not abuse its discretion by deciding the Frye - Reed issue without an evidentiary hearing and in ruling that Frye - Reed was satisfied. (d) In Clemons v. State , 392 Md. 339 , 896 A.2d 1059 (2006), the Court of Appeals held that Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis ("CBLA"), a scientific test that had been generally accepted as a forensic tool for decades, was no longer gen 2018Assuming *457 without deciding that the Allens's proposed expert witness testimony that medical causation exists in fact was subject to a Frye - Reed analysis to be admissible, we nevertheless hold that *870 the trial court did not abuse its discretion by deciding the Frye - Reed issue without an evidentiary hearing and in ruling that Frye - Reed was satisfied. (d) In Clemons v. State , 392 Md. 339 , 896 A.2d 1059 (2006), the Court of Appeals held that Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis ("CBLA"), a scientific test that had been generally accepted as a forensic tool for decades, was no longer gen | 1 | 3 |
Alford v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Alford v. State , 236 Md. 2018App. 57 , 72, 180 A.3d 244 (2018) (holding that appellate court will not uphold, under Rule 5-702, trial court's decision to exclude expert witness's proffered testimony when the issue whether that testimony satisfied Rule 5-702 was not raised or decided below). 14 The limited remand in Chesson I resulted in the circuit court's holding a Frye - Reed hearing and ruling that the workers' expert witness's opinions were admissible. | 1 | 1 |
| Cobey v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
Kelley v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Kelley v. State , 288 Md. 298 , 302, 418 A.2d 217 (1980) (applying Frye - Reed general acceptance test to hold that "testimony which directly or indirectly conveys the results of [a polygraph] test[ ] should not be admitted"); State v. Collins , 296 Md. 670 , 464 A.2d 1028 (1983) (applying Frye - Reed test to hold that expert opinion about hypnotically enhanced witness testimony is inadmissible); U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore , 336 Md. 145 , 182-83, 647 A.2d 405 (1994) (applying Frye - Reed test to hold that surface dust sampling to determine asbestos contamination 2018See Kelley v. State , 288 Md. 298 , 302, 418 A.2d 217 (1980) (applying Frye - Reed general acceptance test to hold that "testimony which directly or indirectly conveys the results of [a polygraph] test[ ] should not be admitted"); State v. Collins , 296 Md. 670 , 464 A.2d 1028 (1983) (applying Frye - Reed test to hold that expert opinion about hypnotically enhanced witness testimony is inadmissible); U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore , 336 Md. 145 , 182-83, 647 A.2d 405 (1994) (applying Frye - Reed test to hold that surface dust sampling to determine asbestos contamination | 1 | 1 |
| Aventis Pasteur, Inc. v. Skevofilaxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| COLEMAN-FULLER v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ragland v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thompson v. Thompsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Montgomery Mutual Insurance v. Chesson
green
2 sentences2018It held that a Frye - Reed hearing was necessary to determine "whether the medical community generally accepts the theory that mold exposure causes the illnesses that respondents claimed to have suffered, and the propriety of the tests [the expert] employed to reach his medical conclusions." 399 Md. at 328 , 923 A.2d 939 . *709 The expert opinion testimony at issue in Blackwell concerned the general medical causal relationship, if any, between thimerosal, a preservative used in childhood vaccines, and autism. 2018It held that a Frye - Reed hearing was necessary to determine "whether the medical community generally accepts the theory that mold exposure causes the illnesses that respondents claimed to have suffered, and the propriety of the tests [the expert] employed to reach his medical conclusions." 399 Md. at 328 , 923 A.2d 939 . *709 The expert opinion testimony at issue in Blackwell concerned the general medical causal relationship, if any, between thimerosal, a preservative used in childhood vaccines, and autism. | 6 | 2009–2018 |
Wilson v. State
green
2 sentences2018Although the general standard of review for admission of expert testimony is discretionary, we recognize that "[a]ppellate review of a trial court's decision regarding admissibility under Frye - Reed is de novo ." Wilson , 370 Md. at 201 n. 5, 803 A.2d 1034 ; accord Savage , 455 Md. at 157 , 166 A.3d 183 . 2018Id. at 180-81 , 166 A.3d 183 . *893 The drift toward applying Frye - Reed to scientific conclusions, not just techniques, was forecast in Wilson v. State , 370 Md. 191 , 803 A.2d 1034 (2002), in which the Court held that an expert opinion based on a statistical rule that was not accepted in the scientific community was not admissible. | 3 | 2009–2018 |
Myers v. Celotex Corp.
green
2 sentences2018In other words, the Frye - Reed test applied not only to the expert's own novel diagnostic testing methods but also to the analysis he had employed in concluding that there was a causal relationship between mold exposure and the cluster of symptoms he had dubbed "sick building syndrome." The Court rejected the workers' argument that under Myers , 88 Md. 1999We reasoned that the Frye/Reed test “generally applies to the admissibility of evidence based upon novel scientific techniques or methodologies.” Id. at 458 , 594 A.2d 1248 . | 3 | 1998–2018 |
Keene Corp. v. Hall
green
2 sentences2018App. 145 , 664 A.2d 60 (1995) (holding that the Frye - Reed test does apply to horizontal gaze nystagmus field sobriety tests, and taking judicial notice of the general acceptance of those tests); Keene Corp., Inc. v. Hall , 96 Md. 2018App. 644 , 626 A.2d 997 (1993) (applying Frye - Reed test to hold that polarized light microscopy, while generally accepted as a technique *707 to detect asbestos fibers in building materials, is not generally accepted as a technique to detect those fibers in human tissue). | 2 | 1995–2018 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences1999Despite the United States Supreme Court’s enunciation of a more liberal admissibility test in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), Maryland courts consistently have utilized the Frye/Reed rule of general acceptance within the field. 11 See Schultz v. State, 106 Md.App. 145 , 664 A.2d 60 *498 (1995). 1999Despite the United States Supreme Court’s enunciation of a more liberal admissibility test in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), Maryland courts consistently have utilized the Frye/Reed rule of general acceptance within the field. 11 See Schultz v. State, 106 Md.App. 145 , 664 A.2d 60 *498 (1995). | 2 | 1999–2018 |
State v. Collins
green
2 sentences2018See Kelley v. State , 288 Md. 298 , 302, 418 A.2d 217 (1980) (applying Frye - Reed general acceptance test to hold that "testimony which directly or indirectly conveys the results of [a polygraph] test[ ] should not be admitted"); State v. Collins , 296 Md. 670 , 464 A.2d 1028 (1983) (applying Frye - Reed test to hold that expert opinion about hypnotically enhanced witness testimony is inadmissible); U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore , 336 Md. 145 , 182-83, 647 A.2d 405 (1994) (applying Frye - Reed test to hold that surface dust sampling to determine asbestos contamination 2018See Kelley v. State , 288 Md. 298 , 302, 418 A.2d 217 (1980) (applying Frye - Reed general acceptance test to hold that "testimony which directly or indirectly conveys the results of [a polygraph] test[ ] should not be admitted"); State v. Collins , 296 Md. 670 , 464 A.2d 1028 (1983) (applying Frye - Reed test to hold that expert opinion about hypnotically enhanced witness testimony is inadmissible); U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore , 336 Md. 145 , 182-83, 647 A.2d 405 (1994) (applying Frye - Reed test to hold that surface dust sampling to determine asbestos contamination | 2 | 1999–2018 |
Armstead v. State
green
2 sentences2005Second, the proponent can prove that the evidence meets the Reed standard of general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.” Armstead v. State, 342 Md. 38, 54 , 673 A.2d 221 (1996) (citations omitted). 2005Second, the proponent can prove that the evidence meets the Reed standard of general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.” Armstead v. State, 342 Md. 38, 54 , 673 A.2d 221 (1996) (citations omitted). | 2 | 1996–2005 |
Abruquah v. State
green
1 sentence2024Frederick, (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Concurring Opinion by Friedman, J. ______________________________________ Filed: May 31, 2024 One aspect that the change from the old Frye/Reed standard to the new Daubert/Rochkind standard was supposed to improve was, in the area of forensic science, that courts would now exclude expert testimony that was generally accepted, but that was not reliable. 1 Regrettably, however, my colleagues in the majority are here accepting so- called police gang expert testimony—law enforcement and corrections officers w | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Phillips v. State
green
2 sentences2020In such circumstances, the trial court conducts a Frye-Reed hearing, which is a “pretrial hearing at which the proponent of the scientific evidence must establish such general acceptance if the admissibility of the evidence is challenged.” Phillips v. State, 451 Md. 180 , 184 n.1, 152 A.3d 712 , 714 n.1 (2017). 2020In such circumstances, the trial court conducts a Frye-Reed hearing, which is a “pretrial hearing at which the proponent of the scientific evidence must establish such general acceptance if the admissibility of the evidence is challenged.” Phillips v. State, 451 Md. 180 , 184 n.1, 152 A.3d 712 , 714 n.1 (2017). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In the Matter of Sanderson
green
1 sentence2018App. 123 , 858 A.2d 1025 (2004), cert. granted , 384 Md. 581 , 865 A.2d 589 , cert. dismissed , 387 Md. 351 , 875 A.2d 702 (2005), the judge concluded that the medical causation opinions being offered by the Allens' expert witnesses were not of the type requiring a Frye - Reed analysis. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Rochkind v. Stevenson green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Sissoko v. State
neutral
1 sentence2018App. 676 , 182 A.3d 874 (2018), cert. denied 460 Md. 1 , 188 A.3d 917 (Md. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Nelson
green
1 sentence2018App. 676 , 182 A.3d 874 (2018), cert. denied 460 Md. 1 , 188 A.3d 917 (Md. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Sissoko v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Miller green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Teel v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Howard v. State
neutral
1 sentence2018Having failed to do so, Howard cannot complain on appeal that the trial court erred by not holding such a hearing"), cert. denied , 453 Md. 366 , 162 A.3d 842 (2017) ; Cobey v. State , 73 Md. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Chesson v. Montgomery Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2018As the Court of Appeals has explained, "[g]eneral acceptance [under Frye - Reed ] does not equate to unanimity of opinion within a scientific community, nor universality, and is not subject to a quantum analysis." Chesson II , 434 Md. at 356 , 75 A.3d 932 ; see also U.S. Gypsum v. Baltimore , 336 Md. 145 , 183, 647 A.2d 405 (1994) (holding that without being directed to any information indicating "that the divergence of opinion over the use of [surface dust sampling for asbestos] amounts to the type of 'fundamental division in the scientific community' which necessitates the exclusion of such 2018As the Court of Appeals has explained, "[g]eneral acceptance [under Frye - Reed ] does not equate to unanimity of opinion within a scientific community, nor universality, and is not subject to a quantum analysis." Chesson II , 434 Md. at 356 , 75 A.3d 932 ; see also U.S. Gypsum v. Baltimore , 336 Md. 145 , 183, 647 A.2d 405 (1994) (holding that without being directed to any information indicating "that the divergence of opinion over the use of [surface dust sampling for asbestos] amounts to the type of 'fundamental division in the scientific community' which necessitates the exclusion of such | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Gordon v. Epstein
neutral
1 sentence2018Having failed to do so, Howard cannot complain on appeal that the trial court erred by not holding such a hearing"), cert. denied , 453 Md. 366 , 162 A.3d 842 (2017) ; Cobey v. State , 73 Md. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Giddens v. State
green
1 sentence2018App. 407 , 812 A.2d 1075 (2002), cert. denied , 374 Md. 83 , 821 A.2d 370 (2003) (pathologist's expert opinion about victim's time of death was not subject to Frye - Reed test for admissibility). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Addison v. State
green
2 sentences2018No Frye / Reed analysis was requested, or even hinted to, at trial"), cert. denied , 412 Md. 255 , 987 A.2d 16 (2010). 2018No Frye / Reed analysis was requested, or even hinted to, at trial"), cert. denied , 412 Md. 255 , 987 A.2d 16 (2010). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Gazunis v. Foster green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Puhl v. Milwaukee Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences2018Co. , 8 Wis.2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 (1959) -clearly would not warrant a Frye - Reed hearing today, or in 1983, when Reed was decided. 2018Co. , 8 Wis.2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 (1959) -clearly would not warrant a Frye - Reed hearing today, or in 1983, when Reed was decided. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Howard v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Roy v. Dackman green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Ross v. Housing Authority green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Wilder v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Payne & Bond green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Montgomery Mutual Insurance v. Chesson green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Clark v. State green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Baby green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Wagner v. State green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| N.B.S., Inc. v. Harvey green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Wiggins v. State green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Haines v. Shanholtz green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Wiggins v. State green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Leahy green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Kalson v. Industrial Commission green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.