analysis based upon work performed by an outside laboratory despite the prosecution’s failure to present testimony from an analyst employed by the outside laboratory); State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1059, 221 P.3d 525, 551 (2009) (“population frequency data and the statistical programs used to make that data meaningful are nontestimonial.”). For that reason, we conclude the admission of the statistical information was not error. But even presuming that the unavailability of the purported population geneticists who prepared the statistical data amounted to a violation of defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him, it does not follow that such a violation automatically rises to the level of plain error. See State v. Walker, 316 N.C. 33, 340 S.E.2d 80 (1986) (<HOLDING>). To establish plain error, defendant must show
holding that the fifth amendment  forbids either comment by the prosecution on the accuseds silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt holding any improper delegation did not rise to level of plain error holding that an infringement on the defendants fundamental due process right in the form of a comment on the defendants silence by the prosecution did not rise to level of plain error holding that plaintiff state employees contract right to be discharged only for cause was not protected by due process clause because it did not rise to level of fundamental right holding a prosecutor may not comment on a defendants silence