Since the U.S. Supreme Court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 superseded the “general acceptance” test more than 20 years ago in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Daubert standard has governed the admissibility of expert testimony in all federal courts. Gradually, many states have also adopted Daubert. With Motorola, Inc. v. Murray, 2016 WL 6134870 (D.C. Oct. 20, 2016), the District of Columbia becomes the latest holdout jurisdiction expressly dispensing the Frye standard and adopting Rule 702.

In Motorola, the en banc District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided the question of “whether the District of Columbia should adopt Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (or a revised Frye standard) for the admissibility of expert evidence.” After careful consideration, the court rejected Frye and unanimously adopted Rule 702, concluding that Rule 702’s expanded focus on whether reliable principles and methods have been reliably applied set forth a standard that was preferable to the Frye test. Although the court considered revising the Frye test, it found substantial benefits to be gained from adopting a test that has been widely used in other jurisdictions applying Rule 702 or its state counterpart.

Motorola provides a balanced examination of Frye and Daubert and a roadmap for other state supreme courts that may be asked to consider the same question. Whether a single standard ever comes to pass remains to be seen, however, this latest jurisdiction to jettison Frye continues the nationwide trend to adopt Daubert. This decision matters because it underscores the need for experts to be sufficiently trained to support or refute an expert’s methodology, as there may not be other studies or testimony to indicate general acceptance. Motorola also serves as yet another signal that rapid technological changes may render the concept of “general acceptance” a thing of the past.