- Standard:Frye-Mack.
- Tests:acceptance + application.
- When:before the jury hears it.
- Goal:exclude unreliable science.
Minnesota uses the Frye-Mack standard — not the federal Daubert test — to decide whether novel scientific or forensic evidence is admissible. Under Frye-Mack, such evidence comes in only if (1) the underlying scientific technique is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, and (2) the evidence has a scientifically reliable foundation in the particular case. A defense challenge can keep unreliable forensic evidence away from the jury. This is a key pretrial tool whenever the State relies on expert or scientific proof.
Minnesota Follows Frye-Mack, Not Daubert
Most states and the federal courts use the Daubert standard, where the judge acts as a flexible "gatekeeper." Minnesota has deliberately kept the older, stricter Frye-Mack approach, reaffirmed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Goeb v. Tharaldson. For a defendant, this matters: the focus is on whether the scientific method itself is genuinely accepted in its field, not just whether one expert finds it persuasive.
The Two Prongs
- General acceptance: When the evidence involves a novel scientific theory or technique, it must be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. Established, long-accepted methods may not need this showing, but newer or contested techniques do.
- Reliable foundation: Even an accepted technique must have been applied reliably in the specific case — proper procedures, valid testing, and a sound basis for the expert's conclusions.
Both prongs must be satisfied, and the evidence must still clear the ordinary rules of evidence (relevance, and probative value versus prejudice).
Where It Comes Up
Expert and forensic evidence appears across criminal cases — chemical and DNA testing, drug analysis, accident reconstruction, certain field tests, and various pattern-matching disciplines. Some forensic methods that were once treated as reliable have faced serious scientific criticism, which is exactly where a Frye-Mack challenge has force. The defense can question whether the technique is truly accepted and whether it was applied correctly here.
Why It Matters
Forensic evidence carries enormous weight with juries — it sounds objective and scientific. If that evidence rests on a shaky method or was performed unreliably, letting it reach the jury unchallenged can be decisive. A Frye-Mack challenge, often supported by the defense's own expert, can exclude or limit that evidence before it ever influences a verdict.
Updated May 18, 2026 · Law verified as of June 8, 2026. This article is general information about Minnesota law, not legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
What standard does Minnesota use for expert evidence?
Minnesota uses the Frye-Mack standard, not the federal Daubert test. Novel scientific evidence must be generally accepted in its field and have a scientifically reliable foundation in the specific case.
Related guides
Tampering With Evidence Charges in Minnesota
How tampering with physical evidence is charged in Minnesota — destroying, concealing, or altering evidence, the intent requirement, and how it differ...
Read the guideThe Accident Defense in Minnesota Criminal Cases
How accident works as a Minnesota criminal defense — when a genuine accident negates criminal intent, how it differs from self-defense, and why it fai...
Read the guideThe Alibi Defense in Minnesota: Proving You Weren't There
How the alibi defense works in Minnesota — the pretrial notice rule, who carries the burden of proof, corroboration, and why "I wasn't there" is reall...
Read the guideThe information on this article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship.