Question 1

1. Some context is required to answer this question. The written ruling of the Court of Appeal for

the District of Columbia in Frye v. U.S. is excerpted below. Within systems of law patterned on

the British legal tradition (which includes the U.S.) the role of judges is to rule on what the law

is; the decisions of lower-level courts may be appealed to higher level courts on the ground that

the lower-level judge erred in his or her ruling regarding the law. In an appeal the lawyers of the

parties argue before the appeals court judges as to how they believe the law should be interpreted

and then the Appeal Court issues its judgment (the sort of thing you have below). Read the

excerpt. State the main point of the paragraph. Is the court's ruling an argument, an explanation,

or both? Provide reasons for your answer. (Worth 3 marks)

FRYE v. UNITED STATES

54 App. D. C. 46, 293 F. 1013

No. 3968

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia

Submitted November 7, 1923 December 3, 1923, Decided

...Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and

demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of

the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert

testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, 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. We think the systolic blood pressure deception test has not

yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological

authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery,

development, and experiments thus far made. The judgment [of the trial court] is affirmed.

Question 2

Read the excerpt from a student essay in the text box below. State the main point of the

paragraph. Is the paragraph providing an argument or an explanation or neither? Provide reasons

for your answer. (Worth 3 marks)

Common law jurisdictions, including Canada, the United States, and England, use adversarial

legal systems (hereinafter: AD). In this system, the investigation of some case and presentation

of evidence at trial is in the hands of the parties (i.e., lawyers for the prosecution, and

representatives of the person accused of some crime). Further, AD lawyers actively engage in the

questioning and subsequent cross-examination of witnesses. The testimonial accounts of

witnesses are shaped by the questions of the parties in examination-in-chief and crossexamination

intended to produce evidence in support of the questioning party's case strategy

(Drier, 2012). Both prosecutors and defence lawyers have a professional responsibility to act as

zealous advocates for their respective parties. According to the Rules of Professional Conduct

from the Law Society of Ontario (RPCLS), as zealous advocates lawyers are to "raise fearlessly

every issue, advance every argument, and ask every question, however distasteful, that the

lawyer thinks will help [their party's] case and to endeavour to obtain...the benefit of every

remedy and defence authorized by law" (5.1[1]). From Boucher v. The Queen, [1955], the role of

the prosecution "is not to obtain a conviction; it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers

to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime" (p.23). Entrusted with the great

power of deciding whether or not to pursue an indictment, the prosecutorial role "...excludes any

notion of winning or losing...[and] is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the

dignity, the seriousness and the justness of judicial proceedings." (Ibid., p.24) Pertaining to

defence lawyers, there is a duty "...to protect [their] client as far as possible from being

convicted, except...upon legal evidence sufficient to support a conviction for the offence with

which the client is charged." (Ibid., 5.1[9]). All evidence is in the control of the parties.