southeastern Hispanic, and southwestern Hispanic population databases. The data demonstrate that valid estimates of a multiple locus profile frequency can be derived for .identity testing purposes using the product rule under the assumption of independence.”). Although we have not previously considered whether the product rule has sufficient general acceptance so as to be admissible, two recent decisions by the Appellate Division accepted DNA statistical evidence calculated using the product rule. See Marcus, supra, 294 N.J.Super. at 287, 683 A.2d 221 (finding that “it is even clearer now than at the time of the Frye hearing that the use of the product rule in DNA analysis is generally accepted in the scientific community”); Dishon, supra, 297 N.J.Super. at 284-85, 687 A.2d 1074 (<HOLDING>). In addition, many other jurisdictions accept
holding that in face of expert testimony that database was valid questions concerning size of database and statistical conclusions drawn from it went to weight not admissibility of evidence holding that proof of a continuous chain of custody is relevant only as to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence holding that once an expert has passed rule 702s threshold of admissibility lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the experts conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility holding that allegations of tampering went to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility holding that use of product rule to calculate frequency of occurrence in caucasian and black populations is scientifically valid and that debate concerning ethnic substructures went to weight rather than admissibility of evidence