imbalances in the polymarker test strips may have been caused not by allele pairs, but by human errors such as contamination or manufacturing defects. Dr. Shaler, at the pretrial hearing and at trial, faulted Cellmark for not repeating the polymarker test procedure despite the possibility of error or contamination. He further stated that contamination, a manufacturing defect, or improper laboratory procedures caused the dot imbalances. Our previous holding that the polymarker test is scientifically reliable, supra part IV.B.4.d., leads us to the conclusion that the foregoing challenges to dot-intensity analysis regarding Cellmark’s performance of the polymarker test, concern not the admissibility, but the weight of the evidence. See Marcus, supra, 294 N.J.Super. at 291, 683 A.2d 221 (<HOLDING>); Fishback, supra, 851 P.2d at 893 (reasoning
holding that experts statements that defendants violated securities law and drew directly upon the language of the statute were legal conclusions that went well beyond his province as an expert holding that the court is limited in amending a verdict after discharge of the jury and cannot invade the province of the jury holding that interpretation of extra bands on autorads developed from bloodstains like an experts ability to perceive an abnormality on an xray is a matter within the province of the jury holding that court lacked jurisdiction on appeal from injunction because the order was simply an interpretation of an earlier order holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion