The case involved the use of a "lie detector" or polygraph test to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant in a criminal trial. The court ruled that the polygraph test was not generally accepted as a reliable scientific technique and therefore could not be admitted as evidence.
The Frye standard, which originated from this case, requires that scientific evidence must be generally accepted by the scientific community in order to be admissible in court. This means that the scientific technique or theory must have gained widespread acceptance and recognition among experts in the field.
The Frye standard was later superseded by the Daubert standard, which was established in the 1993 case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. The Daubert standard expanded the admissibility criteria to include factors such as peer review, error rates, and testability, among others.