Fifteen years after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling on science and expert testimony in the courtroom, state courts are still sharply divided in their approach, with some following the federal Daubert rule, others the older Frye rule, and yet others embracing alterations or exceptions to one or the other. In a WLF Legal Backgrounder paper (PDF) last month, Martin Calhoun of Spriggs & Hollingsworth lays out the current pattern of Daubert-adoption and concludes that "too many juries in too many states still render verdicts based on expert testimony that is not supported by sound science and would not satisfy Daubert's exacting standards of reliability."