the evi-deneé at trial, DNA test results were properly admitted). In Springfield, we held that "if the procedures produce an unreliable result, then the court may exclude the' evidence entirely." 860 P.2d at 443. We agree that, in some cases, "the probability of transfer may serve as the basis for a motion to exclude evidence in a situation where transfer is so likely that invoking DNA findings may risk unduly prejudicing the jury." Faigman, supra, 4 Mod. Sci. Evidence § 80:18. This, however, is not such a case. Cases where courts have found that DNA evidence was so unreliable as to be inadmissible are rare. After a thorough search, we have located very few, none of which are on point. Seq, e.g., People v. Castro, 144 Misc.2d 956, 545 N.Y.S.2d 985, 999 (N.Y.Sup.Ct., Bronx County 1989) (<HOLDING>). [133] The overwhelming majority of courts
holding that procedures were adequate even though the physician did not have the opportunity to challenge the results of an audit before requesting a hearing holding that because the evidence revealed that the testing laboratory failed to comply with established testing procedures the results were inherently unreliable and were inadmissible as a matter of law holding litigants who represent themselves must comply with the procedures established by the rules notwithstanding the fact they are not licensed attorneys holding that the extradition procedures are a matter of state law holding failure to comply with  851b was harmless error in part because defendant did not comply with  851c procedures for challenging prior convictions