2,800 different types of firearms; and her prior expert testimony on between 20 and 30 occasions. Under the circumstances, we are satisfied that the district court effectively fulfilled its gatekeeping function under Daubert. The trial court’s admission of Kuehner’s testimony constituted an implicit determination that there was a sufficient basis for doing so. The formality of a separate hearing was not required and we find no abuse of discretion. 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 embod ies a more liberal standard of admissibility for expert opinions than did Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 588, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (<HOLDING>); see also Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 265
holding use of mtdna analysis to prove identity satisfied frye test for admissibility of new or novel scientific evidence holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant holding that the frye test of general acceptance in the scientific community was superceded by the federal rules holding that the frye test and the federal rules can coexist holding under the restrictive frye test that pcrstr testing is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community