challenges to this evidence were erroneous. The Court, as noted, does find error in the trial court’s refusal to permit questioning on the F.B.I. study. Yet it finds the error to be harmless. Ante at 189, 699 A.2d at 630. The majority comes to that conclusion while recognizing that the “polymarker evidence was an important link in tying defendant to the crime.” Ante at 155, 699 A.2d at 613-614. The dot-intensity analysis added the steel to the links that chained defendant to the crime. Without the dot-intensity analysis, the DNA evidence would have been ambiguous and possibly inadmissible under N.J.R.E. 403. Yet, the majority maintains that an error going to the very foundation of the dot-intensity analysis was harmless. Cf. Williams v. State, 342 Md. 724, 679 A.2d 1106, 1120-22 (1996) (<HOLDING>). The dot-intensity analysis was used by the
holding that the district court committed plain error by admitting evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment where the error did affect a substantial right of the defendants and the admission of evidence which should have been excluded did have a prejudicial impact on the jury holding that because the president of the united states appointed only eight out of the fifty members who sat on the red cross board of governors the plaintiff failed to satisfy the third prong of the lebron test therefore the red cross was not a government actor holding that challenges to assumptions about the strength of the signal from a given cell tower  go to the weight of the testimony not its reliability holding that a district courts refusal to allow cross examination as to certain prior conduct was not reversible error where the jury had sufficient information to appraise the bias and motives of the witness holding that limitations on cross examination of states dna expert was prejudicial error and that challenges to the reliability of the testing procedures used by cellmarkcould have been vital to the jurys determination of how much weight to give to the pcr test results