Case (cite)
United States v. Williams, 506 F.3d 151 (2nd Cir. 2007)
We do not wish this opinion to be taken as saying that any proffered ballistic expert should be routinely admitted. Daubert did make plain that Rule 702 embodies a more liberal standard of admissibility for expert opinions than did Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923) . . . . But this shift to a more permissive approach to expert testimony did not abrogate the district court’s gatekeeping function. Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 396 (2d Cir.2005). Nor did it “grandfather” or protect from Daubert scrutiny evidence that had previously been admitted under Frye. . . . Thus, expert testimony long assumed reliable before Rule 702 must nonetheless be subject to the careful examination that Daubert and Kumho Tire require.