Talk about partisan politics in the judicial system. Washington DC lawyers (plantiffs lawyers of course. They sue people in civil courts mostly on a contingency basis) are whining (lets call it like it is) about the DC judiciary thinking about shifting their rules for expert testimony to the Daubert/Kumho standard in use since the middle 1990’s by the majority of US states.
Their current standard for acceptance is the antique Frye Rule which is almost 100 years old. It allows “general acceptance” by a “community” to pass muster for courtroom acceptance. The definition of “community” seems to be any group greater than 2.
This new discussion is spurred by an awareness and a statement that “false or misleading” expert testimony is the primary reason for wrongful convictions in criminal cases.
Actually, that last is incorrect. False eyewitness testimony is the greatest reason. Experts come second. Read about that here.