Maine has not adopted Daubert or Frye. Maine uses a test that is similar to Daubert. See State v. Williams, 388 A.2d 500 (Me. 1978). Since Williams, the Frye standard of “general acceptance in the scientific community” is no longer available as an exclusionary tool.

“A proponent of expert testimony must establish that (1) the testimony is relevant pursuant to M.R. Evid. 401, and (2) it will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence in determining a fact in issue.” Searles v. Fleetwood Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc., 878 A.2d 509 (Me. 2005) (citing State v. Williams, 388 A.2d 500, 504 (Me. 1978)).

“Indicia of scientific reliability may include the following: whether any studies tendered in support of the testimony are based on facts similar to those at issue, In re Sarah C., 2004 ME 152, P13, 864 A.2d at 165; whether the hypothesis of the testimony has been subject to peer review, id.; whether an expert’s conclusion has been tailored to the facts of the case, id.; whether any other experts attest to the reliability of the testimony, State v. Irving, 2003 ME 31, P14, 818 A.2d 204, 208; the nature of the expert’s qualifications, id.; and, if a causal relationship is asserted, whether there is a scientific basis for determining that such a relationship exists, State v. Black, 537 A.2d 1154, 1157 (Me. 1988).” Id.