or otherwise.” ER 702. 2 In Reese, the concurrence suggested that the Daubert test was the appropriate test to apply in a civil case given the different burden of proof required in a civil proceeding. See Reese, 128 Wn.2d at 310, 312 (C. Johnson, J., concurring). 3 The study was simply designed to see if there was a correlation between such in útero exposures and birth defects; the study was not designed to find cause. 4 For example, polygraph tests have been widely excluded based not only on Frye but as unreliable under ER 702 and as unfairly prejudicial under ER 403. See, e.g., United States v. Cordoba, 194 F.3d 1053, 1062 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming trial court exclusion of polygraph under ER 702 and Daubert, 509 U.S. 579); United States v. Kwong, 69 F.3d 663, 668 (2d Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S.
holding that motion challenging pretrial detention was excludable under act holding admissibility of polygraph evidence should be resolved under fedrevid 403 balancing test but reliability of polygraph test may be included to determine how probative particular polygraph test is holding that time granted for preparing pretrial motions is not automatically excludable under  3161h1 but is excludable only after the district court enters appropriate findings under  3161h7a holding that a plaintiff need only show that the results of a polygraph examination were a factor in the termination of employment and rejecting requirement that results be the sole factor for employees discharge holding that the polygraph results were excludable under er 403