Pending before the District of Columbia\u27s highest court in a case asking whether cell phones can cause cancer is whether to replace the jurisdiction\u27s venerable Frye standard for reviewing the admissibility of scientific evidence with the approach adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow. The author analyzes one aspect of the two evidentiary standards that leads him to question the trial judge\u27s suggestion in Murray v. Motorola that adopting the Daubert perspective would allow greater leeway in excluding the plaintiff\u27s evidence
