In Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), Frye was convicted of second degree murder at trial. On appeal, he claimed that the trial court erred when it sustained the state's objection to the proposed testimony of the defendant's expert witness regarding the result of a systolic blood pressure "deception test" -- a crude precursor to the polygraph machine -- on the defendant. 293 F. at 1013-14. Defendant argued the expert testimony evidence should have been admitted under the traditional common-law test for admissibility of expert testimony because "the question involved does not lie within the range of common experience or common knowledge, but requires special experience or special knowledge." 293 F. at 1014. In sustaining the trial court's refusal to allow the testimony, the court articulated the following test to determine the admissibility of novel scientific evidence: Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. Id. The court held the polygraph test results inadmissible because the test had not yet gained sufficient standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities. Id. The Frye test of "general acceptance" was adopted in Arizona in State v. Valdez, 91 Ariz. 274, 371 P.2d 894 (1962), a case also involving the admission of results of a polygraph test administered to the defendant but introduced by the state pursuant to the parties' pre-test stipulation. Our supreme court surveyed the cases and literature since Frye and concluded that polygraph test results were inadmissible absent stipulation because of the test's continuing "scientific shortcomings," 91 Ariz. at 279-80, 371 P.2d at 898, and lack of acceptance of the technique by "a larger segment of the psychology and physiology branches of science." Id. at 280, 371 P.2d at 898. In Frye v. United States, a 1923 case, a defendant in a criminal trial wanted to use an expert witness to testify to the result of a "deception test" made upon the defendant. The "deception test" measured systolic blood pressure which allegedly is influenced by change in the emotions of the witness. The Frye court summarized the theory as follows: "In other words, the theory seems to be that truth is spontaneous, and comes without conscious effort, while the utterance of a falsehood requires a conscious effort, which is reflected in the blood pressure. The rise thus produced is easily detected and distinguished from the rise produced by mere fear of the examination itself. In the former instance, the pressure rises higher than in the latter, and is more pronounced as the examination proceeds, while in the latter case, if the subject is telling the truth, the pressure registers highest at the beginning of the examination, and gradually diminishes as the examination proceeds." (293 F at 1014.) The Frye court refused to allow the testimony of the expert as to the results of the deception test. The court found: "We think the systolic blood pressure deception test has not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made." (Id.) New York courts have restated and followed the principles of Frye and set forth a test as to the admissibility of expert testimony relating to scientific theory. New York courts permit expert testimony if it is based on scientific principles, procedures or theory only after the principles, procedures or theories have gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific field, proffered by a qualified expert and on a topic beyond the ken of the average juror. (People v. LeGrand, 8 NY3d 449, 867 NE2d 374, 835 NYS2d 523 (2007).) Apparently, there is no reported case in New York or in the rest of the country which deals with the admissibility of the results of fMRI testing. The court inquired of counsel for both parties if they were aware of any reported cases and both advised that this is a case of apparent first impression. However, long established precedent under Frye as well as long established principles of jurisprudence provide the court with ample precedent and guidelines. The Circuit Court expressly stated, "Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stage is difficult to determine and while Courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from well- recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." (293 F. at 1014.) The Court established a standard for the admissibility of expert testimony: expert testimony based on scientific principles or procedures is admissible in evidence where the principle or procedure has "gained general acceptance" in its specified field. The court stated in relevant part: "Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." (Id. at 1014).