of the product rule. Post at 293, 699 A.2d at 682. In particular, the dissent argues that the State never established the independence of the loci tested, post at 290, 699 A.2d at 681, and that the use of the “unmodified” product rule was erroneous, post at 286, 290, 699 A.2d at 679, 681. On this record, the dissent’s arguments are particularly unpersuasive. First, publications reveal that statistical databases used by other laboratories for DQ Alpha and PM loci are often constructed with small groups of blood donors. See, e.g., Kwang Man Woo & Bruce Budowle, “Korean Population Data on the PCR-Based Loci LDLR, GYPA, HBGG, D758, Gc, HLA-DQA1 and D1S80,” 40 J. Forensic Sci. 645 (1995) ( 6, 497 N.W.2d 182 (1993); State v. Copeland, 130 Wash.2d 244, 922 P.2d 1304, 1320-21 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Even on appeal, the defense does not
holding that in face of expert testimony that database was valid questions concerning size of database and statistical conclusions drawn from it went to weight not admissibility of evidence holding that commonlaw actions to augment the size of the estate involving disputed facts to be determined by a jury are not core recognizing principle holding that questions regarding size of fbis population databases was matter of weight once principle that frequency calculations could be made from an adequate database was determined to be generally accepted holding statistical conclusions admissible and questions regarding the size of a tests database goes to the weight not admissibility of the evidence