of a coincidental match is very small and that properly calculated match probabilities are correct within a factor of about 10 either way.”); id. at 156 (“[T]he uncertainty of a value calculated from adequate databases (at least several hundred persons) by the product rule is within a factor of about 10 above and below the true value.”). Applying such a modified product rule to the data in this case reveals that as many as one in seventeen people may share the DNA characteristics of the blood found at the scene. Because of the widespread acceptance of the deficiencies with the product rule in calculating genetic profile frequencies, the vast majority of courts have permitted only modified versions of the product rule to be admitted. See, e.g., Shea, supra, 957 F.Supp. at 341-43 (<HOLDING>); Lowe, supra, 954 F.Supp. at 407-08 (finding
recognizing rule holding district court need not make findings and conclusions as required by rule 52a because under rule 81a3 that requirement could be modified by issuing an order holding that reasonable reliance upon the old rule is an important factor supporting prospective application of the new rule holding that product rule is only reliable and admissible under daubert if the rule is modified to account for likely uncertainties caused by population substructuring and random error allowing product rule when calculated using nrcs recommended factor of ten estimated value holding that because rule 403 and daubert act independently reviewing court need not consider trial courts application of daubert if evidence was properly excluded under rule 403