data to reach the conclusion that Hilario’s DNA was recovered from defendant’s clothing. This opinion readily was testable on cross-examination. See United States v. Summers, 666 F.3d 192, 201-02 (4th Cir.2011) (“On the witness stand, [the expert] painstakingly explained the process whereby he, and he alone, evaluated the data to reach the conclusion that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, [the defendant] was the major contributor of the DNA recovered * * *[.] [The expert’s] opinion was an ‘original product’ that could be (and was) readily ‘tested through cross-examination.’ ” (quoting United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 635 (4th Cir.2009))). Indeed, Quartaro’s opinion was repeatedly challenged on cross-examination. See State v. Morel, 676 A.2d 1347, 1356 (R.I.1996) (<HOLDING>). That is not to say that cross-examination of
holding that there was no ineffective assistance for failing to hire a dna expert because the defenses theory was that the defendants dna was planted so the dna evidence would not seem to be an issue holding that provided a defendant is afforded the opportunity to crossexamine the expert to question the validity of his conclusions and to disclose the potential weaknesses of the proffered dna analyses the results of such analyses may be presented to the jury recognizing the validity of the doctrine but holding no equitable tolling on the facts presented holding that the constitutional right to present a defense is not violated by the exclusion of a defendants proffered evidence where he is otherwise given the opportunity to present his defense and crossexamine the key prosecution witnesses holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged