Daubert or Frye: Jurisdiction Lookup
Which standard governs expert evidence where your matter sits — with three columns rather than two, because a substantial group of states apply a test their own courts describe in their own terms and the tables that round them into a binary are wrong about them in the direction that gets a brief into trouble.
- JURISDICTIONS
- 51 states + DC + federal
- DAUBERT-STYLE
- 26 states
- GENERAL ACCEPTANCE
- 4 states
- STATE-SPECIFIC
- 21 states
- CONTESTED
- 19 flagged
- CHECKED
- September 2026
Every federal court applies Rule 702, amended effective 1 December 2023. Among the states, 26 apply a Daubert-style reliability standard, 4 apply general acceptance — Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and Washington — and 21 apply a state-specific test that neither label describes. 19 jurisdictions carry a contested posture, most often because the standard differs between civil and criminal cases or reaches only scientific testimony.
Verify the current law. This is not legal advice.
This table was last checked in September 2026. Expert-evidence standards in the states move, and they have moved recently: eight jurisdictions have changed which test they apply since 2014, one of them twice in two years, and 9 have amended their rule to track the federal Rule 702 amendments since 2024.
19 of the 52 jurisdictions listed here carry a contested posture — the standard differs between civil and criminal cases, or applies only to scientific as opposed to technical testimony, or is described by the state’s own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Those rows say so on their face rather than printing a clean binary.
Nothing here is legal advice, and none of it substitutes for reading the current rule, the decisions construing it, and any standing order in your own forum. Authorities are identified by mechanism and year rather than by citation, deliberately: this site does not publish citations it cannot verify, and a fifty-state citation table is precisely where an unverifiable one would hide.
Nothing is transmitted and nothing is stored. Every jurisdiction below is also in the reference table further down the page, which reads the same with JavaScript disabled.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Fed. R. Evid. 702, amended effective 1 December 2023
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Yes — the rule or statute carries the amended federal language, including the express preponderance burden.
The amended rule states expressly that the proponent must demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that each requirement is met, and that the opinion must reflect a reliable application of the method to the facts.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Statute enacted 2011, effective 2012, with state Rule of Evidence 702
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
Daubert reaches only scientific testimony, and in criminal cases only adult felonies arising after 1 January 2012; non-scientific experts remain under the older assist-the-trier test.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Evidence Rule 702, as construed by a supreme court decision in 1999
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
Adopted for scientific evidence. The extension to technical and experience-based testimony was declined, so an experience-based expert sits outside the full analysis.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, amended by supreme court order effective 1 January 2024
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Yes — the rule or statute carries the amended federal language, including the express preponderance burden.
Now mirrors the amended federal rule, including the preponderance burden and the reliable-application language. Arizona left general acceptance by rule in 2012.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, as construed by a supreme court decision in 2000
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The reliability inquiry applies to all expert testimony rather than only to scientific testimony; the rule text still carries the pre-2023 federal wording.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Supreme court decisions in 1976 and 2012, applied under the Evidence Code
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
Two screens, not one: a novel scientific technique faces general acceptance, and all expert opinion separately faces the 2012 gatekeeping analysis. Sources split between calling this Frye, Kelly, and hybrid; the supreme court reapplied the general-acceptance rule in 2026.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702 (pre-2000 federal text), as construed by a supreme court decision in 2001
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
A totality-of-the-circumstances reliability test. The court expressly declined to mandate any particular set of reliability factors.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Supreme court decision in 1997, applied under the Connecticut Code of Evidence
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The state analogue of a Daubert hearing carries its own name in Connecticut practice. Two-part reliability and relevance inquiry, reaffirmed in 2022.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, as construed by a supreme court decision in July 2025
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
Follows the amended federal rule in substance without amending its own rule text; trial courts are directed to the federal advisory committee's guidance.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- En banc court of appeals decision in 2016, adopting FRE 702 as the local Rule 702
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The court that created the general-acceptance test abandoned it in 2016. No verified action on the December 2023 federal amendments.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Statutory provisions adopted as rules by the supreme court in 2019, reversing its own 2018 decision
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The most-changed jurisdiction in the country: enacted by the legislature in 2013, rejected by the court in 2018, adopted by the court in 2019. A rules amendment tracking the 2023 federal text is pending.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Statute — a 2005 civil provision carried into the 2013 Evidence Code, extended to criminal cases by 2022 legislation
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
Civil cases since 2005; criminal cases applied general acceptance until the 2022 amendment. Surveys published as recently as 2026 still describe the split as live.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, as construed by supreme court decisions from 1992 onward
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
A three-part test of qualification, helpfulness and a threshold reliability showing. General acceptance is highly probative and the Daubert factors are instructive rather than binding.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702 (restyled 2018), as construed by a supreme court decision in 2022
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The court said it applies Rule 702 rather than the Daubert test, borrowing only some of its standards. Fifty-state tables routinely list Idaho as a Daubert state anyway.
Frye / general acceptance
The question is whether the technique is generally accepted in the relevant field. The judge surveys the field rather than auditing the method.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, adopted 2010 and effective 2011, codifying a 2002 supreme court decision
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The rule text expressly imposes general-acceptance review for new or novel methodology. A reform effort exists; no bill has been adopted.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702(b); no adoption of the federal standard
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The rule requires only that scientific testimony rest on reliable scientific principles. Daubert is treated as helpful and not binding. A rules working group is drafting a change.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 5.702, with supreme court decisions declining the federal test, most recently in 2026
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The court said in 2026 that it has never adopted or required the stricter Daubert test. Commercial guides nonetheless list Iowa as a Daubert state — this is the sharpest live disagreement in the country.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Statute — Daubert adopted by 2014 legislation, amended again by 2026 legislation
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Yes — the rule or statute carries the amended federal language, including the express preponderance burden.
The 2014 statute displaced general acceptance; the 2026 amendment adds the more-likely-than-not language of the amended federal rule. Confirm the effective date of the amendment before relying on it.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, amended by supreme court order effective 1 July 2024
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Yes — the rule or statute carries the amended federal language, including the express preponderance burden.
The rule now carries the amended federal preponderance burden and the reliable-application requirement.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Code of Evidence article 702, amended by 2024 legislation effective 1 August 2024
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Yes — the rule or statute carries the amended federal language, including the express preponderance burden.
A Daubert jurisdiction by decision long before the amendment; the 2024 act aligns the article with the December 2023 federal text.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702 (short pre-2000 federal text), with supreme court decisions in 1978 and 2005
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The court has twice declined to adopt Daubert, applying its own reliability and relevance test in which general acceptance is one permissible consideration.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 5-702, as construed by a supreme court decision in 2020
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
Replaced its long-standing general-acceptance framework in 2020, civil and criminal. A conforming amendment to the 2023 federal text was recommended and declined in 2024.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Supreme judicial court decision in 1994; the state has no codified evidence rules and its guide to evidence is advisory
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
Under the state standard reliability may be established by general acceptance alone, so a Frye-style showing still suffices. Reaffirmed in 2026.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, amended by supreme court order effective 1 May 2024
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Yes — the rule or statute carries the amended federal language, including the express preponderance burden.
The rule now reads essentially verbatim like the amended federal rule, including the preponderance burden and reliable application to the facts.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, amended effective 2006, with supreme court case law
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
General acceptance for novel science plus a rule-based foundational reliability requirement for all expert opinion. Minnesota is expressly not a Daubert state and its own courts say so.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, amended 2003, with a supreme court decision the same year
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
Adopted as modified to reach technical and specialised as well as scientific testimony. An amendment tracking the 2023 federal text is pending before the advisory committee.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Statute enacted 2017, tracking the pre-2023 federal rule
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The federal standard governs most civil and criminal cases, while a separate subsection preserves the older standard for family, juvenile, probate and non-jury matters. Amendment bills are pending.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, as construed by a supreme court decision in 1998 and applied through 2026
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
A three-part inquiry of its own, with Daubert confined to novel scientific evidence.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Supreme court decision in 2001, reaffirmed by the supreme court in 2026
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
Applied in civil and criminal cases. No rule or statute mirroring the December 2023 federal amendments.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Statute, as construed by a supreme court decision in 2010
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The court expressly declined to adopt either Daubert or Frye, applying its own statutory test of qualification, assistance and limited scope.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Statute codifying the Daubert factors, applied alongside state Rule of Evidence 702
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The supreme court applied the codified factors flexibly in decisions in 2024 and 2025.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Supreme court decisions in 2018 (civil) and 2023 (criminal), with an official court comment to the state Rule 702 issued in 2026
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
Courts apply the Daubert factors in civil and criminal cases, but the supreme court has declined to embrace the full body of Daubert case law. Calling New Jersey a Daubert state overstates what its court has said.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 11-702, as construed by supreme court decisions from 1993 onward
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The state test adds a New Mexico-specific factor and applies only to scientific testimony.
Frye / general acceptance
The question is whether the technique is generally accepted in the relevant field. The judge surveys the field rather than auditing the method.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Common-law rule; the state has no codified evidence rules and its guide to evidence is advisory
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The Court of Appeals observed in 2024 that it has held onto the century-old general-acceptance framework, unlike many other jurisdictions. No reform verified.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702(a), amended by statute in 2011, construed by a supreme court decision in 2016
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The 2016 decision held that the legislative amendment adopted the federal standard; it applies civil and criminal. A working group supports conforming to the 2023 federal text.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, as construed by supreme court decisions from 2005 through 2024
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The rule envisions generous allowance of expert testimony and the court has said it never explicitly adopted Daubert. One widely-cited survey labels the state Frye; the actual standard is neither.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, amended by the supreme court effective 1 July 2024
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Yes — the rule or statute carries the amended federal language, including the express preponderance burden.
The amendment added the preponderance burden and reliable-application language, though Ohio-specific elements remain in the rule.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Evidence-code expert provision amended by 2025 legislation, effective 1 September 2025
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Yes — the rule or statute carries the amended federal language, including the express preponderance burden.
A Daubert jurisdiction by decision since 2003; the 2025 act mirrors the December 2023 federal amendments.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, as construed by supreme court decisions in 1984 and 1995
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
Scientific evidence requires a multi-factor state foundation blending general acceptance with Daubert-type factors. The supreme court reapplied it in 2024.
Frye / general acceptance
The question is whether the technique is generally accepted in the relevant field. The judge surveys the field rather than auditing the method.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702(c), adopted 1998, rescinded and replaced effective 2013
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The rule codifies general acceptance and its comment expressly rejects the federal test. A reform effort is active.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Supreme court decisions in 1999 and 2003, applied under state Rule of Evidence 702
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The court has declined to expressly adopt Daubert while drawing guidance from its factors. Many surveys label Rhode Island a Daubert state regardless.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, as construed by supreme court decisions from 1999 onward
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
Expressly declines the federal standard and applies its own three-part test with state-specific reliability factors for novel scientific evidence.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, amended by supreme court rule effective 31 March 2026
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Yes — the rule or statute carries the amended federal language, including the express preponderance burden.
A Daubert jurisdiction since the mid-1990s; the 2026 amendment inserted the more-likely-than-not proponent-burden language of the amended federal rule.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, with a 1997 supreme court decision setting non-exclusive reliability factors
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The rule requires testimony that substantially assists the trier of fact — a higher bar than the federal helpfulness standard — and the reliability factors are permissive. A working group seeks a federal-style amendment.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, with supreme court (1995) and court of criminal appeals reliability decisions
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
A home-grown reliability framework with separate civil and criminal factor lists. Surveys label Texas a Daubert state; the rule text has not been amended.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702, restructured by court rule in 2007 and applied by the supreme court in 2026
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The rule requires only a threshold showing of reliability, and expressly deems that showing satisfied by general acceptance in the relevant expert community.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Supreme court decision in 1995; state Rule of Evidence 702 amended effective 2004
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The rule tracks the 2000 federal text. A 2024 decision applied the Daubert factors as non-exhaustive and discretionary.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- A statutory expert-opinion scheme, with state Rule of Evidence 2:702 derived from it
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
Has never adopted either Frye or Daubert. Requires a threshold reliability finding plus assistance to the fact-finder.
Frye / general acceptance
The question is whether the technique is generally accepted in the relevant field. The judge surveys the field rather than auditing the method.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Supreme court decisions applying general acceptance alongside state Evidence Rule 702
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The supreme court held in 2025 that scientific expert testimony must satisfy both general acceptance and Rule 702 — two hurdles, not one. No reform pending.
State-specific standard
Neither label fits. These jurisdictions apply a test their own courts have described in their own terms — frequently a threshold reliability showing that borrows some Daubert factors without adopting the framework, or a standard confined to novel scientific evidence.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- State Rule of Evidence 702 (2014 restyling), resting on a supreme court decision from 1993–94
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
Gatekeeping is confined by the rule text to novel scientific theory, and the extension to technical experts was rejected. Many surveys label the state flatly Daubert.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Statute — Daubert language effective 2011, amended again by 2026 legislation
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Yes — the rule or statute carries the amended federal language, including the express preponderance burden.
The 2026 act adds gatekeeping and preponderance-burden language mirroring the amended federal rule. Confirm the enrolled text before relying on the wording.
Daubert / Rule 702 reliability
The judge assesses the reliability of the methodology and its application directly. General acceptance is one factor among several rather than the test.
This jurisdiction does not sort cleanly into a column. The posture is mixed, confined to a subset of testimony, or described by its own courts in terms that published fifty-state tables round off. Read the note below before relying on the heading above it.
- AUTHORITY
- Supreme court decision in 1999, reaffirmed by the supreme court in 2025
- CONFORMED TO THE 2023 FEDERAL AMENDMENTS
- Not verified. Most jurisdictions have not amended their rule to match the December 2023 federal text, which means the express preponderance burden and the reliable-application wording may not be available to argue.
The court has said it adopted the federal Daubert standard. No rule change or tracked reform effort.
Why three columns and not two
The two-column table is wrong about roughly twenty states, and it is wrong in the direction that produces a brief citing a standard the forum does not apply.
The received picture is that Daubert governs federally and in most states, and a handful of holdouts still apply Frye. The first half is right. The second half hides a large middle group whose courts have said, in terms, that they apply neither.
- Iowa is listed as a Daubert state by several commercial guides. Its supreme court said in 2026 that it has never adopted or required the stricter Daubert test.
- Idaho’s supreme court said in 2022 that it applies its own Rule 702 rather than the Daubert test, borrowing only some of its standards. A widely-cited 2023 compendium lists Idaho as Daubert.
- North Dakota is listed as Frye by that same compendium, which quotes in the same entry a decision saying the court never adopted Daubert. The actual standard is neither.
- West Virginia is labelled flatly Daubert in most tables; its rule confines gatekeeping to novel scientific theory, and the extension to technical experts was rejected — which matters directly to a digital forensic examiner, who is a technical expert.
- Texas, Tennessee, Utah, Nevada, Virginia, Minnesota, Maine, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Oregon, Colorado, Montana, South Carolina, Indiana and New Jersey each apply a standard their own courts describe in their own terms. Some are close to Daubert in practice. Not one of them is accurately described by the label alone.
The practical consequence is narrow and expensive: a motion briefed on the wrong framework invites a response that spends its first three pages explaining what the standard in the forum actually is, and it does so before reaching the merits of the expert evidence.
The federal rule, as amended
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Two clarifications, neither of them a new standard. The express preponderance language corrects courts that had been treating the reliability requirements as questions of weight for the jury; the rewording of subsection (d) corrects courts that had asked only whether a reliable method existed rather than whether this opinion reflected a reliable application of it. The advisory committee note is explicit that an expert may not state a conclusion with more confidence than the basis and methodology support — which is the single most useful sentence in the amendment for anyone examining a digital forensic opinion.
9 states have since conformed their own rule to that text, by court rule or by legislation. Most have not. That is worth knowing before writing a state-court brief around the preponderance language: it may not be available to argue.
| JURISDICTION | STANDARD | AUTHORITY (MECHANISM AND YEAR) | NOTE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal courts | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | Fed. R. Evid. 702, amended effective 1 December 2023 | The amended rule states expressly that the proponent must demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that each requirement is met, and that the opinion must reflect a reliable application of the method to the facts. |
| Alabama — contested | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | Statute enacted 2011, effective 2012, with state Rule of Evidence 702 | Daubert reaches only scientific testimony, and in criminal cases only adult felonies arising after 1 January 2012; non-scientific experts remain under the older assist-the-trier test. |
| Alaska | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | State Evidence Rule 702, as construed by a supreme court decision in 1999 | Adopted for scientific evidence. The extension to technical and experience-based testimony was declined, so an experience-based expert sits outside the full analysis. |
| Arizona | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | State Rule of Evidence 702, amended by supreme court order effective 1 January 2024 | Now mirrors the amended federal rule, including the preponderance burden and the reliable-application language. Arizona left general acceptance by rule in 2012. |
| Arkansas | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | State Rule of Evidence 702, as construed by a supreme court decision in 2000 | The reliability inquiry applies to all expert testimony rather than only to scientific testimony; the rule text still carries the pre-2023 federal wording. |
| California — contested | State-specific standard | Supreme court decisions in 1976 and 2012, applied under the Evidence Code | Two screens, not one: a novel scientific technique faces general acceptance, and all expert opinion separately faces the 2012 gatekeeping analysis. Sources split between calling this Frye, Kelly, and hybrid; the supreme court reapplied the general-acceptance rule in 2026. |
| Colorado | State-specific standard | State Rule of Evidence 702 (pre-2000 federal text), as construed by a supreme court decision in 2001 | A totality-of-the-circumstances reliability test. The court expressly declined to mandate any particular set of reliability factors. |
| Connecticut | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | Supreme court decision in 1997, applied under the Connecticut Code of Evidence | The state analogue of a Daubert hearing carries its own name in Connecticut practice. Two-part reliability and relevance inquiry, reaffirmed in 2022. |
| Delaware | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | State Rule of Evidence 702, as construed by a supreme court decision in July 2025 | Follows the amended federal rule in substance without amending its own rule text; trial courts are directed to the federal advisory committee's guidance. |
| District of Columbia | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | En banc court of appeals decision in 2016, adopting FRE 702 as the local Rule 702 | The court that created the general-acceptance test abandoned it in 2016. No verified action on the December 2023 federal amendments. |
| Florida | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | Statutory provisions adopted as rules by the supreme court in 2019, reversing its own 2018 decision | The most-changed jurisdiction in the country: enacted by the legislature in 2013, rejected by the court in 2018, adopted by the court in 2019. A rules amendment tracking the 2023 federal text is pending. |
| Georgia — contested | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | Statute — a 2005 civil provision carried into the 2013 Evidence Code, extended to criminal cases by 2022 legislation | Civil cases since 2005; criminal cases applied general acceptance until the 2022 amendment. Surveys published as recently as 2026 still describe the split as live. |
| Hawaii — contested | State-specific standard | State Rule of Evidence 702, as construed by supreme court decisions from 1992 onward | A three-part test of qualification, helpfulness and a threshold reliability showing. General acceptance is highly probative and the Daubert factors are instructive rather than binding. |
| Idaho — contested | State-specific standard | State Rule of Evidence 702 (restyled 2018), as construed by a supreme court decision in 2022 | The court said it applies Rule 702 rather than the Daubert test, borrowing only some of its standards. Fifty-state tables routinely list Idaho as a Daubert state anyway. |
| Illinois | Frye / general acceptance | State Rule of Evidence 702, adopted 2010 and effective 2011, codifying a 2002 supreme court decision | The rule text expressly imposes general-acceptance review for new or novel methodology. A reform effort exists; no bill has been adopted. |
| Indiana — contested | State-specific standard | State Rule of Evidence 702(b); no adoption of the federal standard | The rule requires only that scientific testimony rest on reliable scientific principles. Daubert is treated as helpful and not binding. A rules working group is drafting a change. |
| Iowa — contested | State-specific standard | State Rule of Evidence 5.702, with supreme court decisions declining the federal test, most recently in 2026 | The court said in 2026 that it has never adopted or required the stricter Daubert test. Commercial guides nonetheless list Iowa as a Daubert state — this is the sharpest live disagreement in the country. |
| Kansas | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | Statute — Daubert adopted by 2014 legislation, amended again by 2026 legislation | The 2014 statute displaced general acceptance; the 2026 amendment adds the more-likely-than-not language of the amended federal rule. Confirm the effective date of the amendment before relying on it. |
| Kentucky | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | State Rule of Evidence 702, amended by supreme court order effective 1 July 2024 | The rule now carries the amended federal preponderance burden and the reliable-application requirement. |
| Louisiana | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | Code of Evidence article 702, amended by 2024 legislation effective 1 August 2024 | A Daubert jurisdiction by decision long before the amendment; the 2024 act aligns the article with the December 2023 federal text. |
| Maine — contested | State-specific standard | State Rule of Evidence 702 (short pre-2000 federal text), with supreme court decisions in 1978 and 2005 | The court has twice declined to adopt Daubert, applying its own reliability and relevance test in which general acceptance is one permissible consideration. |
| Maryland | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | State Rule of Evidence 5-702, as construed by a supreme court decision in 2020 | Replaced its long-standing general-acceptance framework in 2020, civil and criminal. A conforming amendment to the 2023 federal text was recommended and declined in 2024. |
| Massachusetts — contested | State-specific standard | Supreme judicial court decision in 1994; the state has no codified evidence rules and its guide to evidence is advisory | Under the state standard reliability may be established by general acceptance alone, so a Frye-style showing still suffices. Reaffirmed in 2026. |
| Michigan | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | State Rule of Evidence 702, amended by supreme court order effective 1 May 2024 | The rule now reads essentially verbatim like the amended federal rule, including the preponderance burden and reliable application to the facts. |
| Minnesota | State-specific standard | State Rule of Evidence 702, amended effective 2006, with supreme court case law | General acceptance for novel science plus a rule-based foundational reliability requirement for all expert opinion. Minnesota is expressly not a Daubert state and its own courts say so. |
| Mississippi | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | State Rule of Evidence 702, amended 2003, with a supreme court decision the same year | Adopted as modified to reach technical and specialised as well as scientific testimony. An amendment tracking the 2023 federal text is pending before the advisory committee. |
| Missouri — contested | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | Statute enacted 2017, tracking the pre-2023 federal rule | The federal standard governs most civil and criminal cases, while a separate subsection preserves the older standard for family, juvenile, probate and non-jury matters. Amendment bills are pending. |
| Montana — contested | State-specific standard | State Rule of Evidence 702, as construed by a supreme court decision in 1998 and applied through 2026 | A three-part inquiry of its own, with Daubert confined to novel scientific evidence. |
| Nebraska | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | Supreme court decision in 2001, reaffirmed by the supreme court in 2026 | Applied in civil and criminal cases. No rule or statute mirroring the December 2023 federal amendments. |
| Nevada | State-specific standard | Statute, as construed by a supreme court decision in 2010 | The court expressly declined to adopt either Daubert or Frye, applying its own statutory test of qualification, assistance and limited scope. |
| New Hampshire | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | Statute codifying the Daubert factors, applied alongside state Rule of Evidence 702 | The supreme court applied the codified factors flexibly in decisions in 2024 and 2025. |
| New Jersey — contested | State-specific standard | Supreme court decisions in 2018 (civil) and 2023 (criminal), with an official court comment to the state Rule 702 issued in 2026 | Courts apply the Daubert factors in civil and criminal cases, but the supreme court has declined to embrace the full body of Daubert case law. Calling New Jersey a Daubert state overstates what its court has said. |
| New Mexico — contested | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | State Rule of Evidence 11-702, as construed by supreme court decisions from 1993 onward | The state test adds a New Mexico-specific factor and applies only to scientific testimony. |
| New York | Frye / general acceptance | Common-law rule; the state has no codified evidence rules and its guide to evidence is advisory | The Court of Appeals observed in 2024 that it has held onto the century-old general-acceptance framework, unlike many other jurisdictions. No reform verified. |
| North Carolina | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | State Rule of Evidence 702(a), amended by statute in 2011, construed by a supreme court decision in 2016 | The 2016 decision held that the legislative amendment adopted the federal standard; it applies civil and criminal. A working group supports conforming to the 2023 federal text. |
| North Dakota — contested | State-specific standard | State Rule of Evidence 702, as construed by supreme court decisions from 2005 through 2024 | The rule envisions generous allowance of expert testimony and the court has said it never explicitly adopted Daubert. One widely-cited survey labels the state Frye; the actual standard is neither. |
| Ohio | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | State Rule of Evidence 702, amended by the supreme court effective 1 July 2024 | The amendment added the preponderance burden and reliable-application language, though Ohio-specific elements remain in the rule. |
| Oklahoma | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | Evidence-code expert provision amended by 2025 legislation, effective 1 September 2025 | A Daubert jurisdiction by decision since 2003; the 2025 act mirrors the December 2023 federal amendments. |
| Oregon | State-specific standard | State Rule of Evidence 702, as construed by supreme court decisions in 1984 and 1995 | Scientific evidence requires a multi-factor state foundation blending general acceptance with Daubert-type factors. The supreme court reapplied it in 2024. |
| Pennsylvania | Frye / general acceptance | State Rule of Evidence 702(c), adopted 1998, rescinded and replaced effective 2013 | The rule codifies general acceptance and its comment expressly rejects the federal test. A reform effort is active. |
| Rhode Island — contested | State-specific standard | Supreme court decisions in 1999 and 2003, applied under state Rule of Evidence 702 | The court has declined to expressly adopt Daubert while drawing guidance from its factors. Many surveys label Rhode Island a Daubert state regardless. |
| South Carolina | State-specific standard | State Rule of Evidence 702, as construed by supreme court decisions from 1999 onward | Expressly declines the federal standard and applies its own three-part test with state-specific reliability factors for novel scientific evidence. |
| South Dakota | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | State Rule of Evidence 702, amended by supreme court rule effective 31 March 2026 | A Daubert jurisdiction since the mid-1990s; the 2026 amendment inserted the more-likely-than-not proponent-burden language of the amended federal rule. |
| Tennessee — contested | State-specific standard | State Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, with a 1997 supreme court decision setting non-exclusive reliability factors | The rule requires testimony that substantially assists the trier of fact — a higher bar than the federal helpfulness standard — and the reliability factors are permissive. A working group seeks a federal-style amendment. |
| Texas — contested | State-specific standard | State Rule of Evidence 702, with supreme court (1995) and court of criminal appeals reliability decisions | A home-grown reliability framework with separate civil and criminal factor lists. Surveys label Texas a Daubert state; the rule text has not been amended. |
| Utah — contested | State-specific standard | State Rule of Evidence 702, restructured by court rule in 2007 and applied by the supreme court in 2026 | The rule requires only a threshold showing of reliability, and expressly deems that showing satisfied by general acceptance in the relevant expert community. |
| Vermont | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | Supreme court decision in 1995; state Rule of Evidence 702 amended effective 2004 | The rule tracks the 2000 federal text. A 2024 decision applied the Daubert factors as non-exhaustive and discretionary. |
| Virginia | State-specific standard | A statutory expert-opinion scheme, with state Rule of Evidence 2:702 derived from it | Has never adopted either Frye or Daubert. Requires a threshold reliability finding plus assistance to the fact-finder. |
| Washington | Frye / general acceptance | Supreme court decisions applying general acceptance alongside state Evidence Rule 702 | The supreme court held in 2025 that scientific expert testimony must satisfy both general acceptance and Rule 702 — two hurdles, not one. No reform pending. |
| West Virginia — contested | State-specific standard | State Rule of Evidence 702 (2014 restyling), resting on a supreme court decision from 1993–94 | Gatekeeping is confined by the rule text to novel scientific theory, and the extension to technical experts was rejected. Many surveys label the state flatly Daubert. |
| Wisconsin | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | Statute — Daubert language effective 2011, amended again by 2026 legislation | The 2026 act adds gatekeeping and preponderance-burden language mirroring the amended federal rule. Confirm the enrolled text before relying on the wording. |
| Wyoming | Daubert / Rule 702 reliability | Supreme court decision in 1999, reaffirmed by the supreme court in 2025 | The court has said it adopted the federal Daubert standard. No rule change or tracked reform effort. |
What has changed since 2014
The argument for checking rather than remembering, in one table. Nine camp changes in twelve years, one state changing twice in two.
| YEAR | JURISDICTION | WHAT CHANGED |
|---|---|---|
| 2014 | Kansas | General acceptance to Daubert, by statute. |
| 2016 | District of Columbia | General acceptance to Daubert, en banc — by the court that created the general-acceptance test. |
| 2016 | North Carolina | Supreme court confirmed that the 2011 statutory amendment had adopted Daubert. |
| 2017 | Missouri | Statute moved most civil and criminal cases to the federal rule's language. |
| 2018 | Florida | Supreme court rejected the legislature's 2013 Daubert statute and returned to general acceptance. |
| 2019 | Florida | Supreme court reversed itself and adopted Daubert — the second change in two years. |
| 2018 / 2023 | New Jersey | Daubert factors adopted in civil cases, then in criminal cases, without adopting the full federal framework. |
| 2020 | Maryland | Long-standing general-acceptance framework replaced with Daubert, civil and criminal. |
| 2022 | Georgia | Criminal cases moved from general acceptance to Daubert by legislation, closing a civil/criminal split that had run since 2005. |
What the difference means for digital evidence
Less than the volume of argument suggests, and in a specific direction. Imaging, hashing and mainstream artifact parsing are generally accepted techniques by any measure, so in a general-acceptance jurisdiction the method itself usually clears the bar and the contest moves to weight at trial. Under a reliability standard the judge examines this examiner’s application to this evidence — which is where digital forensic opinions are actually vulnerable, and it is the reason the six failure modes are about documentation, validation, verification and overstatement rather than about whether hashing works.
Two wrinkles are worth carrying into a state-court matter. First, general acceptance is typically reserved for novel scientific evidence, and a well-established technique may escape the screen altogether — which cuts both ways, because it also means an unvalidated bespoke script may not get the scrutiny it deserves. Second, several states confine gatekeeping to scientific testimony, and a digital forensic examiner is frequently characterised as a technical rather than a scientific expert. Where that characterisation holds, the reliability screen may not apply at all. The guide to Daubert challenges to digital evidence works through the four factors as they actually apply to forensic method, and the Daubert docket tracks how the arguments have run.
What this tool does not tell you
- It is a research starting point, not authority. Nothing here may be cited, and it is not written to be. Each row gives you the mechanism and the year so you can find the rule and the decisions construing it yourself, which is the only version of this that is safe to brief.
- It ages, and it ages unevenly. The dataset was checked in September 2026. Legislatures and rules committees are actively amending in this area — 9 states since 2024 — and a row that was right when written can be wrong within a session.
- One label per jurisdiction is a simplification even where the row is marked settled. Standards routinely differ between civil and criminal cases, between scientific and technical testimony, and between the text of a rule and what the state’s highest court has said about it. The contested flag catches the worst of that; it does not catch all of it.
- It says nothing about your judge or your standing order. Individual judges have practices — pre-trial disclosure of expert materials, hearing procedure, whether a motion is decided on the papers — that affect an expert challenge more than the choice of framework does.
- It does not cover the rest of the admissibility question. Authentication under Rules 901 and 902, hearsay, the scope of a protective order and the underlying discovery are separate questions, and digital evidence fails on them at least as often as it fails on reliability.
- It excludes territories, tribal courts and arbitration. Arbitration in particular frequently applies no formal admissibility standard at all, which changes the calculus for expert evidence considerably.
Questions counsel ask
Which states still use the Frye general-acceptance test?
Is every state that is not a Frye state a Daubert state?
What changed in federal Rule 702 on 1 December 2023?
Have the states adopted the 2023 federal amendments?
Does the standard matter much for digital forensic evidence?
Can I rely on this table to brief a motion?
A methodology documented well enough to satisfy a reliability standard satisfies a general-acceptance one without any extra work. The reverse is not true, which is why the work is scoped to the stricter test whatever the forum turns out to apply.
Bring the output above and it becomes the agenda for the call.
A conflicts check and scoping call follow, normally within one business day. Please do not send privileged or case-sensitive material until conflicts have cleared.
Other tools
- TOOL 01 / RETENTIONPreservation Deadline Calculator
Enter an incident date, pick the systems in play, and see when each source's default retention window closes — with the licence tier every figure depends on stated beside it.
- TOOL 02 / ARTIFACTSCan This Artifact Prove That?
Pick the claim you need to support. See which artifacts bear on it, what each one actually records, and — the half that matters on cross — what none of them establishes.
- TOOL 03 / RETENTION DILIGENCEExpert Vetting Checklist
The nine-step vetting procedure and the eight documents to request, as a checklist you can work through, save in your browser, and print for the file.
- TOOL 04 / RULE 702Daubert Exposure Check
Twelve questions about an expert's methodology, mapped to the six failure modes that account for most digital-forensics exclusions, with the remediation for each gap.
- TOOL 05 / DISCLOSURERule 26 Report Check
The six things Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) requires a retained expert's report to contain, quoted in full, as a checklist against the report on your desk.
- TOOL 07 / SCOPEEngagement Scope Estimator
Build a scope schedule from device count, device type, question complexity, deadline and deliverable — the drivers that move a forensic estimate, itemised.
Attorney advertising / expert services. This tool describes forensic practice and the procedural rules that govern expert evidence in general terms. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney–client or expert-engagement relationship, and it is not a substitute for checking the rules, standing orders, and case law of your own forum. Jurisdictional postures were checked in September 2026, are stated by mechanism rather than by citation, and change without notice; confirm the current law of your forum before relying on anything here. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.