calculations are not 100% accurate, yet the prosecutor presented them as such. We do not even need a statistician to inform us that small samples do not represent to a certainty, the actual population. At best, assuming the database was sufficiently large and random, it may be an accurate sampling of the population, thus permitting us, with a reasonable degree of confidence, to predict the actual frequencies within the population as a whole. See State v. Marshall, 130 N.J. 109, 211-12, 613 A.2d 1059 (1992) (Marshall II) (discussing statistical sampling and noting that statisticians would expect the actual results to differ from the sample by standard deviations), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 929, 113 S.Ct. 1306, 122 L.Ed.2d 694 (1993); Harvey I, supra, 121 N.J. at 427, 581 A.2d 483 (<HOLDING>). • Although the NRC endorses the use of
holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion recognizing that a confidence interval provides information on the accuracy of an experts opinion holding that it is not the courts role to decide whether an experts opinion is correct holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue