With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". United States v. Baller, 519 F.2d 463, 465-67 (4th Cir.1975) (same); United States v. Franks, 511 F.2d 25, 32-34 (6th Cir.1975) (same), and one appellate court had refused to admit expert voice identification testimony, see United States v. Addison, 498 F.2d 741, 745 (D.C.Cir.1974); see generally United States v. McDaniel, 538 F.2d 408, 413 (D.C.Cir.1976) (finding that court was bound by prior ruling that voice identification evidence was inadmissible but noting trend towards admissibility of “voice-prints”). However, all of these cases were decided before Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, in which the Supreme Court set out the applicable standard for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence. See Daubert, 509 U.S. 579, 589-90, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1.993) (<HOLDING>); id. at 593-94, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d

A: holding that under fedrevid 702 expert testimony must be reliable to be admissible
B: holding that rule 702 admissibility determinations are reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard
C: holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant
D: holding that expert testimony may be admissible even if not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community provided that it qualifies in some other way as reliable under federal rule of evidence 702
C.