▁as ▁to ▁whether ▁F RE ▁ 7 0 2 ▁served ▁to ▁bol ster ▁the ▁" general ▁accept ance " ▁r uling ▁in ▁F ry e ▁or ▁if ▁F RE ▁ 7 0 2 ▁was ▁the ▁replacement ▁of ▁this ▁rule . ▁For ▁instance , ▁in ▁U . S . ▁v . ▁Williams , ▁the ▁Second ▁Circ uit ▁respond ed ▁that ▁“ the ▁applicable ▁consider ations ▁[ for ▁expert ▁witness ▁testim ony ] ▁are ▁‘ prob ativ eness , ▁material ity , ▁and ▁reli ability ▁of ▁the ▁evidence ▁on ▁the ▁one ▁side , ▁and ▁any ▁t endency ▁to ▁mis le ad , ▁pre jud ice ▁or ▁conf use ▁the ▁j ury ▁on ▁the ▁other .’ ” ▁The ▁court ▁rejected ▁the ▁evidence ▁brought ▁by ▁the ▁defense ▁as ▁“ j unk ▁science ,” ▁and ▁therefore , ▁appeared ▁to ▁reject ▁the ▁previous ▁preced ent ▁set ▁by ▁F ry e ▁on ▁“ general ▁accept ance ”. ▁This ▁r uling ▁and ▁rational ▁in ▁the ▁Williams ▁case ▁was ▁later ▁adopted ▁by ▁other ▁federal ▁courts , ▁including ▁the ▁Third ▁Circ uit . ▁Con sequently , ▁in ▁ 1 9 8 4 , ▁the ▁Third ▁Circ uit ▁c ited ▁Williams ▁in ▁U . S . ▁v . ▁Down ing , ▁which ▁adopted ▁the ▁“ re li ability ” ▁test ▁in ▁lieu ▁of ▁F ry e ' s ▁“ gener ally ▁accepted ” ▁test . ▁Meanwhile , ▁other ▁federal ▁courts ▁stuck ▁to ▁the ▁F ry e ▁preced ent , ▁causing ▁a ▁stark ▁r ift ▁in ▁the ▁Circ uit ▁Court ▁system . ▁ ▁United ▁Kingdom