How do the Frye Standard and Daubert ruling differ?

A. The Frye Standard is used to judge the admissibility of evidence in court, while the Daubert Ruling expands the Frye Standard by applying a rigorous application of the scientific method to expert witness testimony.

B. The Daubert Ruling is used to judge the admissibility of evidence in court, while the Frye Standard expands on the Daubert ruling by applying a rigorous application of the scientific method to expert witness testimony.

C. The Frye Standard only applies to crime scene evidence, and the Daubert ruling is applied to any and all evidence collection.

D. The Daubert ruling explains how a person can "beat" a polygraph, while the Frye Standard does not.

The Frye Standard is a legal standard used to assess the admissibility of scientific evidence in court. It states that evidence is admissible if it is based on principles that are generally accepted within the scientific community.

The Daubert ruling is a legal precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court that provides a more flexible approach to admitting expert testimony. It focuses on ensuring that scientific evidence is reliable and relevant to the case at hand, applying a rigorous scientific methodology.

In summary, while the Frye Standard emphasizes general acceptance within the scientific community, the Daubert ruling focuses on the reliability and relevance of expert testimony through a strict scientific scrutiny.

Learn more about Differences between the Frye Standard and Daubert ruling here:

https://brainly.com/question/40187176