experienced in such matters” could, in a proper case, give their opinion. Id. Judges had to preliminarily pass on a witness’ qualification to speak to determine if the subject matter properly was within the field of expert testimony. Scotton v. Wright, Del. Ch., 122 A. 541, 545 (1923). The Trial Court’s ruling would only be disturbed if it was manifestly erroneous. Id. (citing Congress & Empire Spring Co., 99 U.S. at 645). The adoption of the Federal Rules, however, cast some doubt throughout the country as to the applicability of the Frye test. See 4 Joseph M. McLaughlin, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence 2d. § 702 App. 100. Some Circuits held that the enactment of the Federal Rule preempted the Frye standard. See Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 5th Cir., 939 F.2d 1106, 1115 (1991) (<HOLDING>); DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
holding under the restrictive frye test that pcrstr testing is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery holding that the frye test of general acceptance in the scientific community was superceded by the federal rules recognizing privilege under federal rules holding that the frye test and the federal rules can coexist