techniques could have widely disparate results. For example, the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that Daubert overruled the per se rule excluding polygraph evidence. See United States v. Cordoba, 104 F.3d 225, 228 (9th Cir.1997); United States v. Posado, 57 F.3d 428, 431-34 (5th Cir.1995). As a result, each federal district court will need to consider the admissibility of polygraph evidence anew each time it is raised. While some argue that this would ensure that the courts have the flexibility to change as science evolves, this practice will also lead to greater variation in decisions at the district court level that may not be correctable at the appellate level under an abuse of discretion standard of review. See Joiner, 522 U.S. at 142-43, 118 S.Ct. 512 (<HOLDING>). In contrast, under the Frye prong of the
holding that appellate courts should review district court determinations of the adequacy of damage awards under an abuse of discretion standard holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion holding that rule 702 admissibility determinations are reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both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