the admissibility of DNA evidence is contested, the trial court must hold a hearing, outside the presence of the jury, and, pursuant to § 36 — 18—30[, Ala.Code 1975], determine whether the proponent of the evidence sufficiently establishes affirmative answers to these two questions: “I. Are the theory and the technique (i.e., the principle and the methodology) on which the proffered DNA forensic evidence is based ‘reliable’? “II. Are the theory and the technique (i.e., the principle and the methodology) on which the proffered DNA evidence is based ‘relevant’ to understanding the evidence or to determining a fact in issue? “Trial courts should make the ‘relevance’ assessment by addressing the ‘fit’ between what the scientific theory and technique are supposed 197 [ (8th Cir.1993) ] (<HOLDING>). We recognize that the state of scientific
recognizing that pleadings in the underlying case are subject to judicial notice by an appellate court holding that another courts decision is a proper subject of judicial notice holding that the reliability of the restriction fragment length polymorphism rflp procedure was subject to judicial notice holding that reliability of the polymerase chain reaction pcr method of dna typing would be subject to judicial notice in future cases holding that the existence and content of a police report are not properly the subject of judicial notice