Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): training, skill, or experience that may be helpful to the jury in understanding or determining the facts. Crime-scene analysis, which involves the gathering and analysis of physical evidence, is generally recognized as a body of specialized knowledge. See generally 2 Wigmore, Evidence § 417b at 499 (1979); State v. Russell, 125 Wash.2d 24, 882 P.2d 747 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1129, 115 S.Ct. 2004, 131 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1995); United States v. Meeks, 35 M.J. 64 (C.M.A.1992); People v. Nolan, 152 Ill.App.3d 260, 105 Ill.Dec. 336, 504 N.E.2d 205 (1987); and Hill v. State, 647 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.App.1982). Therefore, because crime-scene analysis is not scientific evidence, we conclude that we are not bound by the test enunciated in Frye. Cf. Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980) (<HOLDING>). The proper standard to determine whether 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that frye was inapplicable when evidence is in the nature of physical comparisons as opposed to scientific tests or experiments (B) holding that the frye test of general acceptance in the scientific community was superceded by the federal rules (C) holding under the restrictive frye test that pcrstr testing is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community (D) holding use of mtdna analysis to prove identity satisfied frye test for admissibility of new or novel scientific evidence (E) holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant
Output (English): holding that the frye test of general acceptance in the scientific community was superceded by the federal rules