systems. Id. Citing Dauberb, the Colorado Supreme Court stated, “Such a fine distinction is not required under CRE 702’s liberal standard for admissibility.” Id. Since a kit is simply one tool for carrying out the PCR/STR methodology, challenges to the reliability of any particular kit — like challenges to other procedures— go to the weight of the evidence, and not to its admissibility. Shreck, 22 P.3d at 80-82 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Ewell, 252 F.Supp.2d 104, 111 (D.N.J.2003) (Cofiler and Profiler kits “merely provide the materials necessary to perform the PCR amplification process, and thus, the kits need not independently meet the Daubert standard of admissibility”); United States v. Williams, 2008 WL 5382264, *15 (C.D.Cal.2008) (unpublished; non-precedential) (<HOLDING>). The Court notes that the Shreck court’s
holding that the more transformative the new work the more likely the use of the old work is a fair one holding that to grant a new trial the error must be more than harmless holding court need not undergo daubert analysis for reliability of a new pcrstr test kit because the pcr str methodology remained the same when different kits were used which analyzed more loci than prior testing kits in fact kits analyzing more loci were more accurate holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that an alien who has failed the wellfounded fear test for asylum will necessarily fail the more stringent more likely than not test for withholding of removal