maintains that the trial court erred in failing to hold an admissibility hearing on the the size of Cellmark’s databases. See Fishback, supra, 851 P.2d at 893 (admissibility established because evidence uncontradieted). The dissent’s contention that the trial court on its own motion should have conducted an independent Rule 104 hearing on the product rule also is without merit. The product rule assumes that each of the multiplied events (i.e., the matches at each allele) has occurred independently of one another. The State’s witnesses testified at the pretrial hearing and at trial that the population frequencies of the ge 6) (reasoning that “product rule calculations are appropriate as a matter of scientific fact and law”); Pope, supra, 220 Ill.Dec. at 315-16, 672 N.E.2d at 1327-28 (<HOLDING>); People v. Chandler, 211 Mich.App. 604, 536
holding that whether a product is within comment k should be determined on a case by case basis where it is shown that the product is unavoidably unsafe and product of exceptional social need holding that a contract for an exclusive agency to market a product contains an implied promise to use all reasonable efforts to market the product holding statements of product superiority and that product was industry approved were puffery holding that use of product rule was generally accepted in scientific community holding use of mtdna for identification of defendant admissible under test for novel scientific evidence