United States v. McCluskey

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JUDITH C. HERRERA, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion To Exclude DNA and Serology Test Results and Request for Daubert Hearing. [Doc. No. 422, filed April 22, 2012; Doc. No. 442 (Defendant’s (Corrected) Supplemental Memorandum), filed May 10, 2012], Defendant, on numerous grounds, asks the Court to hold a Daubert hearing and to exclude the Government’s DNA test results. The Government filed a Response [Doc. No. 547, filed June 25, 2012], and Defendant filed a Reply [Doc. No. 562, filed July 9, 2012], Both parties also filed voluminous exhibits on CDs submitted to the Court. 1 [May 14, 2012; June 25, 2012]

The Government argued that a pretrial Daubert hearing was unnecessary. [Doc. No. 547, pp. 57-58] The Court agrees that a pretrial Daubert hearing is not warranted on most issues, because a sufficient record has already been presented in the hundreds of pages of briefs and thousands of pages of exhibits. On May 6 and 7, 2013, however, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the admissibility of Low *1229 Copy Number (LCN) testing; Defendant was present at the hearing. At that hearing the Court admitted about 100 additional exhibits, for a total of about 3,500 pages of exhibits.

The Court has reviewed the parties’ filings, the evidence presented, and the relevant law. The Court grants Defendant’s motion to exclude the results of LCN DNA testing; the Court otherwise denies Defendant’s motion to exclude DNA evidence. The Court concludes that the Government has not carried its burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the results of the LCN testing conducted by the New Mexico Department of Public Safety (NMDPS) Laboratory are admissible. The Court thus specifically excludes the DNA evidence on Item 1132313, conceded by the Government to be an LCN result. With respect to the remainder of Defendant’s arguments, the Court concludes that Defendant’s motion is not well taken and is denied.

BACKGROUND

Several handguns were collected when Tracy Province, and later Defendant and Casslyn Welch, were arrested. Numerous swabs were taken from the Haases’ pickup truck and from items inside the truck. These items and others were tested by Carrie Zais Davis, the Government’s DNA analyst at NMDPS Laboratory. 2 Davis produced a number of reports setting forth her test results, her analyses, and her opinions. These lab reports were provided to Defendant, and Defendant provided them to the Court. [Def s Ex. G6]

The Court has four lab reports, from August 30, 2010; September 30, 2010; December 22, 2010; and April 27, 2011. These lab reports list the numerous items examined, the procedures employed, the analyst’s results and conclusions, and in some instances the statistical analysis. The Government proposes to have its DNA analyst, Davis, testify at trial to her results and conclusions from DNA testing. According to the Government’s disclosure, Davis is also expected to testify regarding collection of samples, the strict chain of custody observed, lab controls in place to protect the integrity of the samples, and the peer review process used in the analysis of these samples and subsequent comparison. [Doc. No. 442, p. 19]

For instance, the Government asserts that a .40 caliber Smith & Wesson handgun was the murder weapon. [Doc. No. 547, p. 4] Davis tested and analyzed a number of swabs taken from different parts of this handgun, Item 1B22. Davis’s lab report states the procedures and methods used: “the Applied Biosystems AmpFISTR Identifiler PGR Amplification Kit on a GeneAmp PCR System 9700 thermal cycler,” an “Applied Biosystems 3130 Genetic Analyzer,” and “GeneMapper ID software.” [Defs Ex. G6, Sept. 30, 2010 report, p. 2] Davis’s report states that a DNA mixture was obtained from different parts of this handgun and magazine, and states her opinion: “To a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, John McCluskey is the source of the major DNA profile resolved from these mixtures.” [Id. (referring to Items 1B22A (swab of stains on rear of handgun slide); 1B22B (swab of stain on inside of handgun ejection port); 1B22C (swab of handgun grips); 1B39A (swab of stain on 1 Smith & Wesson magazine)) ] Davis’s report states that a DNA mixture was obtained from a swab (Item 1B22D) of the trigger and trigger guard on the same handgun; the lab report *1230 states Davis’s opinion: “John McCluskey and Casslyn Mae Welch cannot be eliminated as possible contributors to this DNA mixture.” [Defs Ex. G6, Sept. 30, 2010 report, p. 2] Davis’s April 27, 2011 lab report states that Davis also analyzed swabs of staining (Item 1B22E) on the underside of the slide above the barrel of the same handgun (Item 1B22) and determined that it was blood; the report states her opinion: “To a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, John McCluskey is the source of the DNA identified on item 1B22E.” [Defs Ex. G6, April 27, 2011 report; see Doc. No. 547, p. 4 (further describing location of stain) ]

In addition, Davis analyzed “Touch DNA” swabs from the steering wheel (Item 31 a) and from the gear shifter (Item 31 g) of the Haases’ pickup truck. [Defs Ex. G6, Dec. 22, 2010 report, pp. 1, 3] Davis’s report states that a DNA mixture was obtained from both of these items and states, with respect to both Item 31a and Item 31g: “To a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, John McCluskey is the source of the major DNA profile resolved from this mixture.” [Id., p. 3] Davis further states her opinion, regarding Item 31a, that Welch, Province, Linda Haas, and Gary Haas are eliminated as contributors to this DNA mixture. [Id.] Regarding Item 31 g, the report states that the minor DNA profile may be used for elimination purposes only, and that Welch, Province, and Linda Haas are eliminated as contributors of the minor DNA profile. [Id.]

Davis also analyzed swabs of red stain recovered from the pavement at a Phillips 66 gas station in Santa Rosa, New Mexico, Item R-6. [Doc. No. 547, p. 5; Defs Ex. G6, Dec. 22, 2010 report, pp. 2, 4] Davis’s report states that a DNA mixture was obtained from Item R-6 and states her opinion that Linda Haas and Gary Haas “cannot be eliminated as possible contributors to this DNA mixture.” [Defs Ex. G6, Dec. 22, 2010 report, p. 4] Davis states that Welch, Province, and Defendant “are eliminated as contributors to this DNA mixture.” [Id.]

The Court is not currently aware of how many of the results and conclusions from Davis’s lab reports the Government proposes to present at trial.

Defendant filed a motion to exclude the results of all of the Government’s DNA testing. [Docs. No. 422, 442] The Government filed a Response [Doc. No. 547], and Defendant filed a Reply [Doc. No. 562]. Both parties also filed voluminous exhibits on CDs. [May 14, 2012; June 25, 2012] The Court admitted about 100 additional exhibits at the May 6-7, 2013, evidentiary hearing.

I. ADEQUACY OF DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENT

Defendant asserts that the Government’s Notice of Intention To Offer Expert Testimony [Doc. No. 261] and the Supplemental Notice of Intent To Offer Expert Testimony [Doc. No. 386] do not comply with Rule 16. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 17-23] 3 Defendant quotes the page-long summary of the Supplemental Notice regarding Carrie Zais (Davis), Supervising Forensic Scientist. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 18-20] This summary states that the Government provided Defendant with Davis’s reports and “approximately 70 pages of methodology, testing analysis, results, notes, and national match detail report.” [Doc. No. 442, p. *1231 19] Defendant acknowledges that he received at least eleven pages from Davis’s laboratory reports, together with “voluminous foundational material.” [Doc. No. 442, pp. 20-23; Defs Ex. G6] Defendant asserts, however, that these documents do not “tell us what [her] conclusions are” and do not “begin to describe ‘the bases and reasons for those opinions,’ ” as required by Rule 16. [Doc. No. 442, p. 20]

The Government responds that its disclosures meet the requirements of Rule 16 and satisfy the intent of the discovery requirements. [Doc. No. 547, pp. 5-6] The Government asserts that it has provided more than Rule 16 requires — including Davis’s lab reports, the foundational data including protocols and standard operating procedure, internal and external audits, and proficiency tests. [Doc. No. 547, p. 6]

The Government was required to disclose expert evidence to be presented at trial under Rules 702, 703, or 705. In civil cases, Rule 26 requires a “written report” containing “a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i). The requirements in criminal cases are more limited; Rule 16 requires the Government to give Defendant only “a written summary” including “the witness’s opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness’s qualifications.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(G). Rule 16 disclosure is designed to give the opposing party notice, permitting preparation for cross-examination and presentation of opposing experts. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 1 advisory committee’s notes to 1993 amendment. Detailed, extensive discussion is not required in the Rule 16 summary: “Although the summary required by Rule 16 provides the defense with some notice, the requirement of setting forth ‘the bases and reasons for’ the witnesses’ opinions does not track the methodological factors set forth by the Daubert Court.” Margaret A. Berger, Procedural Paradigms for Applying the Daubert Test, 78 Minn. L.Rev. 1345, 1360 (1994).

The Government provided Defendant with a curriculum vitae for Carrie Zais (Davis), which Defendant provided to the Court as an exhibit. 4 [Defs Ex. X6] Provision of the expert’s curriculum vitae satisfies the requirement of Rule 16 to include a description of the witness’s qualifications. United States v. Mehta, 236 F.Supp.2d 150, 155 (D.Mass.2002).

The Government provided Defendant with Davis’s laboratory reports, eleven pages of which were provided to the Court by Defendant. [Defs Ex. G6] These reports sufficiently notified Defendant of Davis’s opinions. For instance, the September 30, 2010 report, at page 2, informs Defendant that Davis can be expected to testify to her opinion that, “[t]o a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, John McCluskey is the source of the major DNA profile” obtained from items 1B22A, 1B22B, 1B22C, and 1B39A. The “voluminous foundational material” Defendant acknowledges receiving — including the methodology, testing analysis, results, notes, and national match detail report — was sufficient to describe “the bases and reasons for those opinions” under Rule 16. In addition, the Government’s disclosure notice informed Defendant that Davis is also expected to testify regarding collection of samples, the chain of custody, lab controls in place to protect the integrity of the samples, and the peer review process used in the analysis of these samples and subse *1232 quent comparison. [Doc. No. 386; see Doc. No. 442, p. 19]

The Tenth Circuit rejected similar arguments that a Rule 16 disclosure failed to sufficiently convey an expert’s opinions and the bases and reasons for those opinions. In Brown, the government provided a fingerprint examiner’s CV and report, and the summary of testimony stated that the expert “will testify that she compared the defendant’s known fingerprints found on fingerprints [sic] cards with a latent fingerprint found” on a job application, and “will testify the latent fingerprint on the job application is the defendant’s fingerprint.” United States v. Brown, 592 F.3d 1088 , 1089 n. 2 (10th Cir.2009). At trial, the expert testified that she found fourteen identical points of comparison between the defendant’s known print and the latent print found at the crime scene. Id. at 1089 . The Tenth Circuit “was unpersuaded by Brown’s argument that because the government’s summary failed to mention fourteen identical points of comparison or specifically describe the expert’s methodology, the summary was deficient.” Id. at 1091 . The Tenth Circuit held that the government’s disclosure substantially complied with Rule 16 because the summary and report stated the expert’s opinion and described the anticipated testimony — that “the fingerprint found at the scene of the crime matched Brown’s.” Id. at 1091 .

The Tenth Circuit opinion in Brown shows that Rule 16 disclosures are not required to include the extensive and exhaustive level of detail and information for which Defendant is arguing. The Court finds that the Government’s disclosures meet the requirements of Rule 16.

Defendant also asserts that the Government’s notice was late, under the Court’s Scheduling Order. [Doc. No. 442, p. 18] It is not necessary for the Court to consider this issue further other than to observe that it is Defendant’s burden to “demonstrate” prejudice — either from the timing or the adequacy of the Government’s disclosure. See United States v. Kenyon, 481 F.3d 1054, 1062 (8th Cir.2007). Summarily asserting prejudice does not satisfy Defendant’s burden to demonstrate prejudice. See United States v. Apperson, 441 F.3d 1162, 1204 (10th Cir.2006) (regarding denial of motion to continue). The purposes of Rule 16 include minimizing surprise from unexpected expert testimony and allowing a party to prepare for cross-examination and presentation of opposing experts. Fed.R.Crim.P. 16 advisory committee’s note to 1993 amendment. Defendant has not demonstrated that the purposes of the Rule are frustrated. See United States v. Thornton, 642 F.3d 599, 606 (7th Cir.2011); United States v. Stevens, 380 F.3d 1021, 1026 (7th Cir.2004) (prejudice under Rule 16 requires showing of undue surprise and inadequate opportunity to prepare defense). Defendant’s very thorough pleadings and exhibits in support of his motion to exclude DNA evidence show that Defendant has had adequate notice to enable him to prepare a defense. In addition, the Court does not find any indication that the Government has acted in bath faith.

The Court finds that the Government’s disclosure satisfies Rule 16. Even if the Court had found any violation, the Court would have been required to impose the least severe sanction that would fulfill the purposes of Rule 16. Brown, 592 F.3d at 1090 . Rule 16(d)(2) provides a variety of possible sanctions. “In selecting a proper sanction, a court should typically consider (1) the reasons the government delayed producing requested materials, including whether the government acted in bad faith; (2) the extent of prejudice to defendant as a result of the delay; and (3) the feasibility of curing the prejudice with *1233 a continuance.” United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251, 1262 (10th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Frequently it mil be found that the party who requested disclosure has not been prejudiced and that no sanction is needed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The record before this Court shows that Defendant has been provided, well in advance of trial, lab reports and extensive foundational material; Defendant thus knows “well in advance of trial who [is] going to testify and the nature and purpose of the expected testimony.” Charley, 189 F.3d at 1262 . Exclusion of expert evidence “is almost never imposed in the absence of a constitutional violation or statutory authority for such exclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The extreme sanction of exclusion would not be warranted in this case, even if the Court had found any violation.

Since the purposes of Rule 16 have been satisfied, and the Court finds no evidence of bad faith in any delays, there is no basis for any sanction. See id.

In addition, since Defendant has requested, and been granted, a continuance of the trial date, the Court finds that any prejudice from any failure to fully comply with disclosure will be cured. Charley, 189 F.3d at 1262 . The Court finds that Defendant has sufficient time to prepare for trial, there is no unfair surprise, and no sanctions are warranted.

II. NO NECESSITY FOR A SEPARATE, PRETRIAL DAUBERT HEARING

Defendant asks the Court to hold a Daubert hearing. [Doc. No. 442, p. 98] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). The Government argues that a pretrial Daubert hearing is unnecessary. [Doc. No. 547, pp. 57-58] The Court agrees that a separate, pretrial Daubert hearing is not warranted — except for a hearing on LCN testing, which was held on May 6-7, 2013; a sufficient record on other issues has already been presented in the hundreds of pages of briefs and thousands of pages of exhibits.

“ ‘The most common method for fulfilling [the gatekeeper function] is a Daubert hearing, although such a process is not specifically mandated.’ ” United States v. Turner, 285 F.3d 909, 913 (10th Cir.2002) (quoting Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R. Co., 215 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir.2000)). “Daubert challenges, like other preliminary questions of admissibility, are governed by Fed.R.Evid. 104.” United States v. Nichols, 169 F.3d 1255, 1263 (10th Cir.1999). Rule 104 “provides that a hearing outside the presence of the jury ‘shall be ... conducted when the interests of justice require.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R.Evid. 104 (amended 2011, see Fed. R. Evid. 104 advisory committee’s note (explaining that 2011 amendments are part of the restyling of the Rules and intended to be stylistic only; there is no intent to change any result in any ruling))). “The requirement of the ‘interests of justice’ implies discretion on the part of the trial court to be reviewed only for an abuse.” Id.

The Court is required to make “a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-93 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 . The Court must also determine whether the proffered witness is qualified as an expert. The opinions give this Court “considerable leeway” in “deciding how to test an expert’s reliability, and to decide whether or when special briefing or other proceedings are needed *1234 to investigate reliability.” Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999); see Turner, 285 F.3d at 913 . “The trial court enjoys broad latitude in executing its gate-keeping function; there is no particular procedure it is required to follow.” United States v. Vargas, 471 F.3d 255, 261 (1st Cir.2006). The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of “considerable leeway,” because broad discretion is needed to allow the Court both to avoid “unnecessary ‘reliability’ proceedings” and to require “appropriate proceedings” when necessary. Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 152 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 ; see Nichols, 169 F.3d at 1262-63 ; Vargas, 471 F.3d at 261-62 .

In Nichols , the defendant challenged the admissibility of opinions by a forensic explosives expert about the type and size of the bomb that destroyed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. The defendant challenged the FBI laboratory’s protocol and procedures, and also challenged the manner in which the lab work was performed; the defendant’s challenges included arguments that the FBI laboratory lacked proper protocols and prescribed procedures, that the testing methodologies used were inappropriate, that unqualified persons participated in performing the test, that the equipment was not properly maintained, and that discovery information suggested the possibility of contamination. Nichols, 169 F.3d at 1262-63 . “In sum, the defense argue[d] that the government must prove to the court, outside the presence of the jury, that appropriate scientific methods were properly applied before the test results and conclusions drawn from them can be admitted as relevant and reliable scientific evidence.” Id. at 1262 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The district court in Nichols declined to hold a pretrial Daubert hearing and reserved ruling on admissibility until the testimony was offered at trial. Id. The Tenth Circuit held that the court did not abuse its discretion, because a separate, pretrial hearing is not required in order for a district court to properly fulfill its gatekeeping function. Id. at 1263.

The district court in Nichols stated that the evidence did not involve “any new scientific theory and the testing methodologies are neither new nor novel.” Id. at 1263 . The district court stated that “the contentious issue was whether the test results were undercut by flaws in the laboratory tests, a matter involving the credibility of witnesses and weighing of the evidence, both of which were more suitable for resolution by the jury.” Id.

The district court in Nichols reasoned that the showing required to determine admissibility was also evidence that must be presented to the jurors to allow them to assess the weight and credibility of the expert opinion evidence. Id. at 1263-64 . The Tenth Circuit agreed, quoting the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 104: “ ‘Not infrequently the same evidence which is relevant to the issue of establishment of fulfillment of a condition precedent to admissibility is also relevant to weight or credibility----’” Id. at 1264 . The district court concluded: “Because the accused has the right to have the jury hear evidence relevant to the weight and credibility of opinion evidence, the necessary foundation for admission should be presented to the jury”; and “That procedure avoids the duplication that would result from a pretrial hearing.” Id. at 1263-64 . Again the Tenth Circuit agreed, stating that the district court’s “method of conserving judicial resources” was consistent with the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 104:

[T]ime is saved by taking foundation proof in the presence of a jury. Much *1235 evidence on preliminary questions, though not relevant to jury issues, may be heard by the jury with no adverse effect. A great deal must be left to the discretion of the judge who will act as the interests of justice require.

Nichols, 169 F.3d at 1264 (quoting Fed. R.Evid. 104 advisory committee’s note). The district court in Nichols ruled that the necessary foundation would be proved, and the district court would determine the adequacy of that showing, before the expert would be permitted to give opinions and conclusions. Id. at 1263 . The district court also stated that if voir dire would be too prolonged or would include matters inappropriate for the jury to hear, the voir dire could be conducted outside the jury’s presence. Id.

The Tenth Circuit stated that the district court’s actions in Nichols were “flawless.” Id. at 1264 . The Tenth Circuit held that “Daubert does not mandate an evidentiary hearing,” and, on appeal, the Court “simply require[s] ‘a sufficiently developed record in order to allow a determination of whether the district court properly applied the relevant law.’ ” Nichols, 169 F.3d at 1262 (quoting United States v. Call, 129 F.3d 1402, 1405 (10th Cir.1997)).

The Tenth Circuit observed that the procedure followed by the district court in Nichols was consistent with the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Davis. Nichols, 169 F.3d at 1264 . In Davis, there was a lengthy hearing on the DNA evidence before the jury and without objection from the defendant; the expert witness was examined, and cross-examined, about compliance with protocol before she gave her opinion. United States v. Davis, 40 F.3d 1069, 1075 (10th Cir.1994). The court then overruled the defendants’ objection and allowed the witness to give her opinion. Id. “The district court thus had the opportunity to determine whether protocol was followed before [the expert witness] testified that the samples matched [the defendants] and explained her statistical calculations.” Id. The Tenth Circuit approved this procedure, stating that the district court in Davis “thus conducted the functional equivalent of a preliminary hearing.” Id.

More recently, the Tenth Circuit again held that a separate, pretrial Daubert hearing is not specifically mandated. United States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234, 1253-54 (10th Cir.2009) (en banc). A party has “no entitlement to a particular method of gatekeeping by the district court.” Id. at 1245 . The Tenth Circuit stated, “Other circuits are in accord with the Tenth Circuit view.” Id. at 1254 n. 18 (citing additional cases); see United States v. Alatorre, 222 F.3d 1098, 1099-1104 (9th Cir.2000).

In determining that a separate, pretrial hearing is not required under Daubert , the Court observes that a number of courts have held that judicial notice of the reliability of PCR/STR DNA analysis can be taken. See, e.g., United States v. Beasley, 102 F.3d 1440, 1448 (8th Cir.1996); State v. Butterfield, 27 P.3d 1133, 1143 (Utah 2001). The Court does not take judicial notice in this case, but rather determines on the basis of the record before the Court, that the Government’s DNA evidence is admissible (with the exception of LCN evidence); however, cases holding that courts may take judicial notice of the reliability of PCR/STR DNA evidence further support the Court’s determination that a separate, pretrial Daubert hearing is not necessary in this case.

In the case before the Court, the briefs on the DNA evidence are more than two hundred pages long and the exhibits submitted by the parties exceed three thousand pages (plus additional exhibits on LCN testing). The parties have cited numerous additional authorities. The parties *1236 have fully briefed the issues. The Court has not placed a limitation on the information upon which to base the Daubert decision. Compare Dodge, 328 F.3d at 1223-24, 1228 (district court has discretion to limit information, but abused discretion in rejecting 47-page motion with several-thousand-page appendix and imposing 20-page limit on brief plus appendix, and declining to accept proffers of reports and studies; taken together with other limitations, court severely and unreasonably limited information), with Nacchio, 555 F.3d at 1250 (no unreasonable limitation of information). The parties were allowed to exceed normal page limits in their briefs and to present written submissions. See Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 344 F.3d 753 , 761 n. 3 (8th Cir.2003). In this case, the Court has granted generous page extensions, allowing Defendant his requested extension to 144 pages for the motion to exclude DNA evidence. [Doc. No. 428] In addition, despite concluding that Defendant exceeded the page extension granted, the Court denied the Government’s motion to strike [Doc. No. 443, filed May 11, 2012]; the Court accepted and fully reviewed Defendant’s motion. [Doc. No. 1008, filed June 7, 2013]

The Court finds that there is a sufficient record for decision and that the parties have been provided ample opportunity to be heard. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on LCN testing; the Court finds that a separate, pretrial Daubert hearing is unnecessary on other DNA issues. The Federal Rules seek to avoid “unjustifiable expense and delay” as part of their search for truth and the just determination of proceedings. Kumho, 526 U.S. at 153 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 102). But, more important, the Court finds that the foundation for admissibility under Daubert is the same information that must be presented to the jurors to allow them to determine the weight and credibility of the expert evidence; Defendant therefore has the right to have the jury hear this evidence. See Nichols, 169 F.3d at 1263-64 . The evidence which would be presented at a separate, pretrial Daubert hearing can be presented to the jury at trial.

The Court emphasizes that the Government must lay the foundation for admissibility under Daubert before any expert opinions or conclusions are given. See Nichols 169 F.3d at 1263 ; Fed.R.Evid. 705 (court can order that expert first testify to underlying facts or data, before giving opinion). This ruling applies to all DNA evidence; in addition, with regard to evidence from mixed samples, the Government is ordered to lay a foundation demonstrating that the DNA result does not constitute LCN testing with respect to any contributor for whom the Government wants to introduce a DNA result.

Defendant’s motion for a separate, pretrial Daubert hearing on issues other than LCN testing is denied.

III. DNA TESTING IN THIS CASE

The Government states that the NMDPS DNA Laboratory used the following in this case: Quantifiler Duo DNA Quantification Kit; AmFISTR Identifier PCR Amplification Kit; Applied Biosystems 7500 Real-Time PCR SDS Software, version 1.2.3.; Applied Biosystems 3130 Genetic Analyzer Data Collection Software, version 3.0; Applied Biosystems GeneMapper ID Software, version 3.2; FBI Popstats software, version 5.7.4; ABI Prism 3130 Genetic Analyzer. [Doc. No. 547, pp. 7-8] The Identifier kit amplifies fifteen STR loci, including the thirteen core DNA markers used in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), and two internationally accepted STRs. [Gov’s Ex. 14 (6/25/12) ]

*1237 As the Government points out, some of Defendant’s arguments and challenges concern procedures not used in this case, and they need not be addressed by this Court.

IV. ADMISSIBILITY OF DNA EVIDENCE

A. Legal Standard Governing Admissibility Under Daubert and Rule 702

The admission of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Rule’s interpretation by the Supreme Court in Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 , 118 S.Ct. 512 , 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). Rule 702 was amended in 2000 in response to Daubert and Kumho Tire . Fed.R.Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note. The 2000 amendment affirms the trial court’s role as gatekeeper, excluding unreliable expert testimony. 5 Id. Rule 702 provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

The proponent of the evidence has the burden of showing that expert evidence is admissible, by a preponderance of proof. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 n. 10, 113 S.Ct. 2786 ; United States v. Orr, 692 F.3d 1079, 1091 (10th Cir.2012); Fed.R.Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note to 2000 amendment. The trial court has “wide latitude” in exercising its discretion to admit or exclude expert testimony. Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp., 400 F.3d 1227, 1232 (10th Cir.2004); see Kumho, 526 U.S. at 147 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 (“broad latitude” in determining how to determine reliability and in ultimate reliability determination).

The trial court “ ‘generally must first determine whether the expert is qualified.’ ” United States v. Avitia-Guillen, 680 F.3d 1253, 1256 (10th Cir.2012) (quoting United States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234, 1241 (10th Cir.2009) (en banc)). “If the expert is sufficiently qualified, then ‘the court must determine whether the expert’s opinion is reliable by assessing the underlying reasoning and methodology.’ ” Id. (quoting Nacchio, 555 F.3d at 1241 ). Trial courts have the responsibility of ensuring that scientific testimony or evidence is both relevant and reliable. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . “Relevant evidence ‘means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.’ ” Bitler, 400 F.3d at 1234 (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 401). The trial court acts as gatekeeper, making “a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or method *1238 ology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-93 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . The gatekeeping function requires a “ ‘sufficiently developed record’ ” to allow a determination of whether the trial court “ ‘properly applied the relevant law.’ ” Avitia-Guillen, 680 F.3d at 1258 (quoting Nichols, 169 F.3d at 1262 ).

Daubert sets forth a non-exclusive list of factors that may be considered, including: (1) whether the theory or technique can be, and has been, tested; (2) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation; and (5) whether the theory is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . The trial court need not apply all of these factors. Avitia-Guillen, 680 F.3d at 1258 . The trial court may consider additional relevant factors. Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 149-50 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 .

The Daubert Court emphasized that the inquiry under Rule 702 is “a flexible one.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . “Its overarching subject is the scientific validity — and thus the evidentiary relevance and reliability — of the principles that underlie a proposed submission.” Id. at 594-95 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . “The focus, of course, must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.” Id. at 595 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . Joiner added that “conclusions and methodology are not entirely distinct from one another.” Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146 , 118 S.Ct. 512 . A court need not admit opinion evidence “that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.” Id. “A court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” Id.

The Federal Rules encourage the admission of expert testimony. 4 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.02[1], at 702-5 (Joseph M. McLaughlin, ed., Matthew Bender 2d ed.2012). The Dauberb Court recognized the “liberal thrust” of the Federal Rules and their “general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to ‘opinion’ testimony.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 588 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 (internal quotation marks omitted). “The presumption under the Rules is that expert testimony is admissible.” 4 Weinstein & Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.02[1], at 702-5. “A review of the caselaw after Daubert shows that the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule.” Fed.R.Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note to 2000 amendment. As the Advisory Committee explained, “‘the trial court’s role as gatekeeper is not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land, 80 F.3d 1074, 1078 (5th Cir.1996)). “As the Court in Daubert stated: ‘Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.’ ” Id. (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 ). These conventional devices, rather than exclusion under the restrictive and elevated standard set by Frye, are “the appropriate safeguards where the basis of scientific testimony meets the standards of Rule 702.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . “As the ultimate fact-finder, it is the jury that must determine, finally, where the truth in any case lies, and the district judge as gatekeeper may not usurp this function.” United States v. *1239 Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1272 (11th Cir.2004).

B. Qualifications of Government’s Witness, Carrie Zais Davis

The Government provided Defendant with the curriculum vitae of its proposed DNA expert, Carrie Zais Davis. [Def's Ex. X6; Gov’s Ex. 4 (5/6/13) (updated CV) ] At the May 6, 2013 evidentiary hearing, additional information was provided about Davis’s qualifications; without objection from Defendant, Davis was qualified to testify as an expert in DNA analysis. [Tr. 5/6/13, p. 130]

Davis obtained a B.A. in Biology from the University of Texas, Austin, in 2000. In 2003-2004, Davis took courses in: statistical analysis of forensic DNA evidence, population genetics, and biochemistry. [Tr. 5/6/13, p. 120; Defs Ex. X6] Between 2003 and 2011, Davis attended twelve seminars or workshops. She testified, however, that she did not believe she had ever attended a class on LCN testing. [Tr. 5/6/13, p. 169] She is a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Davis worked as a paternity laboratory technician at Orchid GeneScreen for one year. She then worked at Orchid Cell-mark as a CODIS DNA analyst for eight months and as a Forensic DNA Analyst for the next five years. For the following three years, Davis worked at the New Mexico Department of Public Safety Laboratory as a “Forensic Scientist, Advanced,” in the Biology/DNA Unit. From October, 2010, to the present Davis was the “Supervising Forensic Scientist, Advanced.”

The Government’s Response states that Davis “has been responsible for and qualified to perform, DNA extractions, mixed stains analysis, STR/PCR analysis, serological evaluation, report writing and statistical interpretation, paternity testing, and database (CODIS) analysis.” [Doc. No. 547, p. 3] Davis testified that she had worked on about 1500 DNA analyses. [Tr. 5/6/13, p. 119] The Government states that Davis “completed extensive in-house training on both the AmpFlSTR Identifiler Amplification Kit” and the 3130 Genetic Analyzer. [Doc. No. 547, p. 3] Davis takes two proficiency tests per year, as required in a CODIS-participating lab; Defendant was provided with the results of five proficiency tests. [Tr. 5/6/13, p. 123; Doc. No. 547, p. 6 n. 6] Davis has testified as a DNA expert eleven times. [Tr. 5/6/13, pp. 129-30]

In a case involving a witness with similar, though lesser, qualifications than Davis, the Tenth Circuit held “meritless” a claim that the witness was not qualified as a DNA expert. Wilson v. Sirmons, 536 F.3d 1064, 1102 (10th Cir.2008) (opinion reinstated after rehearing en banc, sub nom. Wilson v. Workman, 577 F.3d 1284, 1287 (10th Cir.2009)). The witness in Wilson had worked as a criminalist with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation for seven and one-half years; she had a B, Sc. in chemistry, had received training in DNA testing, and had testified six times as a DNA analyst. Id. The Tenth Circuit held that the claim was “meritless,” and that the petitioner had not demonstrated “any error” in qualifying the witness as an expert. Id. (emphasis added). The Tenth Circuit was reviewing a due process claim of plain error in a federal habeas case, so could have affirmed based on a lower standard; the language used by the Tenth Circuit, however, shows that the court would have reached the same conclusion on the standard applicable for a preserved claim under Rule 702.

Davis has twelve years of experience in DNA analysis. Davis holds the position of Supervising Forensic Scientist, Advanced — apparently a higher title than *1240 the witness in Wilson . The Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Wilson constitutes persuasive authority that Davis is qualified as a DNA expert. See also Vargas, 471 F.3d at 258-60, 262 (witness qualified as fingerprint expert on basis of many years of experience, though witness lacked degrees in science); Butterfield, 27 P.3d at 1140 (lab supervising criminalist, with only B.Sc. in medical technology, was qualified as expert in DNA analysis largely by extensive experience together with further training and short courses); Patterson v. State, 729 N.E.2d 1035, 1040 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (DNA supervisor, with only bachelor’s degree in biochemistry, was qualified as expert in DNA analysis by 10 years in forensic serology department and about 5 years in DNA Unit, and several classes in PCR analysis). A witness may even be qualified as an expert on the basis of experience alone, as the text of the rule states. Fed.R.Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note to 2000 amendment (“Nothing in this [2000] amendment is intended to suggest that experience alone — or experience in conjunction with other knowledge, skill, training or education — may not provide a sufficient foundation for expert testimony.”).

Defendant’s motion raises a number of questions about Davis’s qualifications:

(1) In his 2012 motion to dismiss, Defendant observes that the documents that had been provided by that time did not show whether Davis had met continuing-education requirements. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 106-07] At the May 6, 2013 hearing, however, Davis testified that she always fulfilled or exceeded her continuing-education requirement of eight hours per year. [Tr. 5/6/13, p. 120]

(2) Defendant raises a question regarding forms showing “K. Zais” or “Katherine Zais” working as “technical support personnel.” [Doc. No. 442, p. 106 (regarding forms included in Def s Ex. X6) ] The Government responds that those documents do not concern Carrie Zais Davis, but her sister Katherine Zais. [Doc. No. 547, p. 3 n. 3]

(3) Defendant speculates that Davis may not be sufficiently familiar with the Identifiler kit. [Doc. No. 442, p. 107] This speculation is, at most, a suggestion of a gap in Davis’s qualifications or knowledge. But “[g]aps in an expert witness’s qualifications or knowledge generally go to the weight of the witness’s testimony, not its admissibility.” Robinson v. GEICO General Ins. Co., 447 F.3d 1096, 1100 (8th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Davis’s familiarity with the Identifiler kit is a subject Defendant may explore on cross-examination at trial; any lack of familiarity would not be a reason to refuse to qualify her as a DNA expert. See First Union Nat’l Bank v. Benham, 423 F.3d 855 , 862 (8th Cir.2005) (factual basis goes to credibility, not admissibility). The Court observes that the Government states that Davis “completed extensive in-house training” on the Identifiler kit. [Doc. No. 547, p. 3]

(4) Defendant suggests that Davis may be biased, because she works for a lab closely aligned with a police department. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 85-86, 107] This, again, is a proper subject for cross-examination; evidence of bias would not be a proper basis for exclusion of expert testimony. Cruz-Vazquez v. Mennonite Gen. Hosp., 613 F.3d 54, 59 (1st Cir.2010); see United States v. Baldridge, 559 F.3d 1126, 1135 (10th Cir.2009) (proper subject for cross-examination of any witness is question of bias). The issues to which the Court must apply its gatekeeping role under Daubert must be distinguished from the issues properly left to the jury. It is the Court’s role to make a preliminary determination of whether Davis has sufficient specialized *1241 training or knowledge to qualify as an expert. But it is the jury’s role to assess any potential bias and the impact of any bias on the weight to give her testimony. Cruz-Vazquez, 613 F.3d at 59 .

(5) Defendant suggests that, although he was provided with the results of five successful proficiency tests, blind proficiency tests would have provided better quality assurance. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 145-47] Defendant also suggests that a DNA analyst should be certified, citing National Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, p. 208 (2009) [hereinafter NRC (2009) ]. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 105-06, 144-45] Defendant argues that Davis may be qualified “to testify to the procedures she used in this case,” but that her CV does not demonstrate that she is qualified “to testify about molecular biology, to make estimates of population frequencies, or to establish that a biological methodology or an estimation procedure is valid evidence or generally accepted.” [Doc. No. 442, p. 106]

Certification may indicate that an expert’s opinion is entitled to greater weight, but such certification is not a prerequisite to qualification as an expert witness. Pages-Ramirez v. Ramirez-Gonzalez, 605 F.3d 109, 114 (1st Cir.2010). A court abuses its discretion if it refuses to qualify a witness as an expert solely because the expert does not have the degree or specialization that the court considers to be most appropriate. Id. As indicated by the use of the disjunctive “or” in Rule 702, any one of the five bases listed in the Rule may be sufficient. Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167 , 176 (5th Cir.1990), abrogated on other grounds by Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 , 1075 n. 14 (5th Cir.1994); 4 Weinstein & Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.04[l][c], at 702-57; 29 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 6265 (1997 & 1st ed.2012). A witness may be qualified as an expert on the basis of experience alone. Nacchio, 555 F.3d at 1258 ; Fed.R.Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note to 2000 amendment.

Similarly, if Davis had taken blind proficiency tests, passing them might have bolstered her qualifications more than the proficiency tests administered by NMDPS, which are not “blind.” See People v. Lehmkuhl, 117 P.3d 98, 103-04 (Colo.Ct.App.2004). But open proficiency tests satisfy TWGDAM 6 guidelines. National Research Council, The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence, p. 79 (1996) [hereinafter NRC II].

The Court finds that Defendant’s arguments go to the weight of Davis’s testimony, not to its admissibility. Additional attributes might have bolstered Davis’s qualifications, but they are not necessary for a witness to qualify as an expert. The Court concludes that Carrie Zais Davis is qualified to testify as an expert in DNA analysis. Davis’s qualifications meet or exceed those of the witness determined to be qualified by the Tenth Circuit in Wilson, 536 F.3d at 1102 . The Court places considerable emphasis on Davis’s extensive practical experience.

C. Reliability of PCR/STR Methodology

The PCR/STR method of DNA analysis was used in this case. [Doc. No. *1242 547, p. 8; Def s Ex. G6] Defendant states that he is raising the issue of whether PCR/STR testing is generally reliable. [Doc. No. 442, p. 97]

Back in 1997, the Shea court observed that “although PCR is a relatively new technology, it is based on sound scientific methods and it has quickly become a generally accepted technique in both forensic and non-forensic settings.” United States v. Shea, 957 F.Supp. 831, 338 (D.N.H1997), aff 'd, 159 F.3d 37 (1st Cir.1998). “The PCR Typing methods used by the FBI in this case readily satisfy Rule 702’s reliability requirement.” Id. In concluding that the methodology is reliable, courts rely on relevant scientific and forensic literature including NRC II, published in 1996. Lemour v. State, 802 So.2d 402, 405 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001). “Perhaps the strongest evidence on this point is the conclusion reached by the National Research Council’s Committee on Forensic DNA Science that ‘the molecular technology [on which PCR is based] is thoroughly sound and ... the results are highly reproducible when appropriate quality-control methods are followed.’” Shea, 957 F.Supp. at 338 -39 (quoting NRC II, p. 23 (1996)). “In addition, the NRC’s conclusion is supported by numerous studies published in both scientific and forensic journals which show widespread use of the STR technique in DNA analysis.... ” Lemour, 802 So.2d at 405-06 (internal quotation marks omitted).

By 2001, many more opinions held that PCR/STR testing was reliable and admissible, both under Frye and under Rule 702. Lemour, 802 So.2d at 405 . The Lemour court concluded that the PCR/STR method is “generally accepted by the relevant scientific community” — thus meeting the elevated Frye standard applicable in Florida courts. Id. at 406 . PCR/STR testing had achieved widespread acceptance and “overwhelming endorsement” in both scientific and forensic journals. Butterfield, 27 P.3d at 1142 -43 (citing articles); see United States v. Trala, 162 F.Supp.2d 336, 347-48 (D.Del.2001) (PCR/STR profiling is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community, widely accepted in the U.S. and internationally), aff'd, 386 F.3d 536 (3d Cir.2004); Stills v. Dorsey, 7 Fed.Appx. 856, 859 (10th Cir.2001) (unpublished) (concluding N.M. Supreme Court’s holding that PCR testing is admissible under Daubert not contrary to federal law). The Utah Supreme Court observed in 2001 that “PCR-based testing, which encompasses STR testing, has been held to be a scientifically correct and reliable technique by a vast majority of courts in other jurisdictions.” Butterfield, 27 P.3d at 1143 (citing cases). The Colorado Supreme Court concluded in 2001: “The majority of courts in other jurisdictions that have considered the issue have held that DNA evidence derived from the PCR testing method satisfies the standards for admissibility under either Frye or Rule 702.” People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68, 79 (Colo.2001) (en banc) (citing cases).

By 2003, additional cases observed that the majority of jurisdictions addressing the issue held that PCR/STR testing was scientifically rehable and admissible. State v. Whittey, 149 N.H. 463 , 821 A.2d 1086, 1094 (2003); see State v. Traylor, 656 N.W.2d 885, 891, 900 (Minn.2003) (holding, under the restrictive Frye test, that PCR/STR testing is “generally accepted in the relevant scientific community”). The Whittey court observed that “PCR-based STR DNA testing is recognized and used in virtually every State and by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” Whittey, 821 A.2d at 1094 . A New Jersey court observed: “It would appear that every appellate court in the nation that has addressed the issue has accepted the scientific reliability of STR technology.” State v. De *1243 loatch, 354 N.J.Super. 76 , 804 A.2d 604, 613 (N.J.Super.Ct. Law Div.2002) (applying Frye); see Wilson v. Sirmons, 536 F.3d 1064, 1102 (10th Cir.2008) (“Numerous federal and state courts as well as scientific investigators have found that PCR DNA analysis is reliable.”). Acceptance of PCR/STR testing by the courts indicates that this evidence is reliable. United States v. Goxcon-Chagal, 885 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1137 (D.N.M.2012). Although a reliability assessment under Daubert does not require determination that the methodology is “generally accepted” in the relevant scientific community, the Daubert Court stated that widespread acceptance is one of the factors in favor of admissibility under Rule 702. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . For this reason, cases holding that PCR/STR testing is “generally accepted” under the elevated Frye test are persuasive support for the conclusion that this methodology is reliable under Rule 702 and Daubert .

In 2009, the National Research Council stated that “nuclear DNA analysis ... has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.” NRC (2009), p. 7. DNA typing is “universally recognized as the standard against which many other forensic individualization techniques are judged.” Id. at 130. “DNA enjoys this preeminent position because of its reliability and the fact that, absent fraud or an error in labeling or handling, the probabilities of a false positive are quantifiable and often minuscule.” Id. at 130.

Daubert recognized that “theories that are so firmly established as to have attained the status of scientific law, such as the laws of thermodynamics, properly are subject to judicial notice.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 n. 11, 113 S.Ct. 2786 . On this basis, a number of courts have held that it is proper to take judicial notice of the reliability of PCR/STR analysis, even under the restrictive Frye test. See, e.g., United States v. Beasley, 102 F.3d 1440, 1448 (8th Cir.1996); Butterfield, 27 P.3d at 1142-43 .

Considering the Daubert factors, it is clear that the PCR/STR method can be and has been extensively tested, it has been subjected to peer review and publication, there is a low error rate according to NRC (2009), and there are controls and standards in place. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 ; see Trala, 162 F.Supp.2d at 347, 350 (FBI’s PCR/STR methodology has low to zero error rate, and controls are followed). As shown by the citations of cases and scientific authorities above, the PCR/STR method has gained extremely “widespread acceptance” — which is “an important factor” in reaching the conclusion that this is a method reliable enough to meet the standard for admissibility under Daubert and Rule 702. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . Based on overwhelming scientific and forensic acceptance, as well as acceptance by the vast majority of courts, this Court concludes that the PCR/STR method of DNA typing is reliable and admissible under Rule 702 and Daubert .

D. Application of PCR/STR Methodology

1. Legal Standard

Defendant raises the issue of how intensively and extensively the trial court reviews proposed expert evidence in its gatekeeping function. The Government distinguishes between review of the methodology itself (i.e.,-.the PCR/STR method of DNA testing); and review of the application of that methodology (e.g., the kits, software, hardware, and statistics). The Government’s position is that once the *1244 PCR/STR methodology is held admissible under Daubert and Rule 702, challenges to the particular procedures and instrumentalities used in applying that method go primarily to the weight of the DNA evidence and not to admissibility. Defendant essentially argues that no distinction should be made between methodology and application, and that exactly the same analysis under Daubert applies to the PCR/STR methodology and to each part of the procedure. Defendant argues that, before DNA evidence can be admitted, the Government must prove that each step in the procedure and each item used in the procedure meet the Daubert test for scientific reliability. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 87-99]

The Court concludes that the caselaw, together with the policy and principles underlying Rule 702 and Daubert , supports the Government’s position. As the Court concludes in Section IV(C) above, the PCR/STR methodology is reliable and admissible under Rule 702 and Daubert ; Defendant’s challenges to the application of that methodology go primarily to the weight of the DNA evidence, not its admissibility.

(a) Tenth Circuit caselaw

The Government states that the NMDPS Laboratory used: Quantifiler Duo DNA Quantification Kit; AmFISTR Identifiler PCR Amplification Kit; Applied Biosystems 7500 Real-Time PCR SDS Software, version 1.2.3.; Applied Biosystems 3130 Genetic Analyzer Data Collection Software, version 3.0; Applied Biosystems GeneMapper ID Software, version 3.2; FBI Popstats software, version 5.7.4; ABI Prism 3130 Genetic Analyzer. [Doc. No. 547, pp. 7-8] The Government states that the “systems and machines” used are “the industry standard for DNA testing.” [Doc. No. 547, p. 4]

Defendant argues that “forensic DNA testing requires a series of distinct steps, and that the methods employed at each major step are independently reviewable under Daubert ”; these “steps” and “methods” include all of the kits, software, and hardware listed in the preceding paragraph and, in addition, the statistical methods, population databases, and capillary electrophoresis. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 87, 90-91, 94-96] Defendant cites a number of Tenth Circuit cases — including Dodge, Tyson Foods, and Davis — in support of this argument. Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 328 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir.2003); Att’y Gen. of Okla. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 565 F.3d 769 (10th Cir.2009); United States v. Davis, 40 F.3d 1069 (10th Cir.1994). [Doc. No. 442, pp. 68, 87-90, 93-94, 97, 99; Doc. No. 562, pp. 7-8]

Defendant’s argument relies heavily on language quoted by the Tenth Circuit in Dodge:

Under Daubert , “ ‘any step that renders the analysis unreliable ... renders the expert’s testimony inadmissible. This is true whether the step completely changes a reliable methodology or merely misapplies that methodology.’ ” Mitchell, 165 F.3d at 782 (quoting In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 745 (3d Cir.1994)). [hereinafter Paoli II]

Dodge, 328 F.3d at 1222; see Tyson Foods, 565 F.3d at 780 (quoting same language). [Doc. No. 442, p. 89] Relying on this “any step” language, Defendant argues that “the methods employed at each major step are independently reviewable under Daubert ; each step must be scientifically valid.” [Doc. No. 442, p. 90] Defendant argues that several Tenth Circuit cases have addressed this issue and some have cited the “any step” language from Paoli II.

The Court concludes that this “any step” language does not mean what Defendant *1245 takes it to mean — that Daubert requires the same level of scrutiny for every step in the procedure as for review of the PCR/ STR methodology itself. The Tenth Circuit cases cited by Defendant — Dodge, Davis , and Tyson Foods — do not support Defendant’s argument.

Although Dodge quotes the “any step” language, that principle was not determinative in Dodge so it was unnecessary for the Tenth Circuit to extensively consider the point. Dodge acknowledges Daubert’s exhortation: “The focus, of course, must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . Dodge then cites Joiner’s principle that there may be “simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146 , 118 S.Ct. 512 . [Doc. No. 442, pp. 88-89] Dodge finally cites the often quoted passage from the Third Circuit’s opinion in Paoli II: “Under Daubert , ‘any step that renders the analysis unreliable ... renders the expert’s testimony inadmissible. This is true whether the step completely changes a reliable methodology or merely misapplies that methodology.’ ” Dodge, 328 F.3d at 1222 (quoting Mitchell v. Gencorp Inc., 165 F.3d 778, 782 (10th Cir.1999) (quoting Paoli II, 35 F.3d at 745 )). Although the Dodge court cited these propositions, the holding did not rest on clarifying or applying them. Instead, the Tenth Circuit reversed because the trial court had not performed its gatekeeping function-fading to make specific, detailed findings that the expert opinions were based on valid reasoning and reliable methodology. Id. at 1225-28. An additional and alternative ground for reversal was the trial court’s unreasonable limitation of the information upon which it made its Daubert decisions. Id. at 1228-29. Dodge therefore does not aid Defendant.

Nor does the Tenth Circuit opinion in Davis support Defendant’s argument. In Davis , the defendants argued that because the trial court did not adequately investigate whether the government had followed protocol, the government had not established the reliability of the RFLP DNA analysis. Id. at 1073 . The Davis court stated the inquiry under Daubert as a two-part test: (1) “ ‘whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid,’ ” and (2) “ “whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.’ ” Id. at 1074 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-93 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 ). Only the second part was at issue in Davis. Id. at 1074, 1072 (at trial the parties, then proceeding under Frye, had stipulated RFLP DNA testing was “generally accepted”). The Tenth Circuit identified a split in the circuits. The Court suggested that the Eighth Circuit “concluded that Daubert has raised the standard” by requiring the trial court “to make a specific finding that ‘the testimony was derived from the application of a reliable methodology’ ” before admitting scientific evidence. Davis, 40 F.3d at 1074 (quoting Martinez, 3 F.3d at 1198). In contrast, the Second and Ninth Circuits held that adherence to protocol was normally an issue for the jury and that imperfectly conducted laboratory procedures go to the weight of DNA evidence, not its admissibility. Id. at 1074 n. 7 (citing United States v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 793-800 (2d Cir.1992); United States v. Chischilly, 30 F.3d 1144, 1154 (9th Cir.1994)). The Tenth Circuit found it unnecessary to address this circuit split or to more intensively review what Martinez held; the trial court in Davis had determined that protocol was followed, thus meeting the highest standard discussed. Davis, 40 F.3d at 1075 .

Davis does not aid Defendant. First, the Tenth Circuit did not hold that the *1246 “stringent” standard ascribed to Martinez was required by law — only that the trial court in Davis had in fact satisfied this standard. Id. at 1075 . Second, the Tenth Circuit was critical of this “stringent” standard, because raising the standard for expert evidence was contrary to Daubert and the “liberal thrust” of the Federal Rules. Id. at 1074.

In Tyson Foods, the State of Oklahoma asserted environmental claims and sought to enjoin Tyson Foods from applying poultry waste to land within the Illinois River Watershed. Oklahoma’s expert used microbial source tracking to identify a DNA biomarker specific to poultry litter bacteria; by using PCR to replicate the bacteria’s DNA, she believed she could identify whether the bacteria in various environmental samples came from poultry litter instead of from other sources. Id. at 775, 780. The process required the expert to identify and develop poultry-litter-specific DNA fragments, or primers, in an effort to track the source of contamination. Id. at 780-81.

Because the PCR methodology was applied to an entirely new area, requiring the development of primers for bacterial DNA that had not been identified previously, the district court looked to other indications of reliability for this “ ‘novel and untested’ ” method. Id. at 781. Since there were no additional indications of reliability — no testing, no publications, no peer review— the district court determined that the expert evidence was not “sufficiently reliable” under Daubert. Id. at 775, 780-81. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that “where established methods are employed in new ways, a district court may require further indications of reliability.” Id.

At first blush, Tyson Foods may appear to support Defendant’s argument. In setting out the legal standard, Tyson Foods does quote the “any step” language from Paoli II. Id. at 780 (quoting Mitchell v. Gencorp Inc., 165 F.3d 778, 782 (10th Cir.1999) (quoting Paoli II, 35 F.3d at 745 )). The Tenth Circuit decided the case on the basis of Joiner , however — holding that there was “too great an analytical gap” when the expert applied established methodology in a novel way, without “further indications of reliability.” Id. at 780. In fact, Tyson Foods suggests that the “any step” language is a restatement of Joiner ; a step that “completely changes a reliable methodology or merely misapplies that methodology” constitutes “too great an analytical gap.” Interpreted in this way, Tyson Foods does not support Defendant’s argument.

In addition, Tyson Foods provides some support for the Government’s position. The Tenth Circuit hints that the PCR methodology is scientifically valid, and cites with approval several cases admitting PCR evidence and also holding that deficiencies in the procedure go to weight, not admissibility. Id. at 780-81. The Tenth Circuit cites United States v. Boswell, 270 F.3d 1200, 1205 (8th Cir.2001), with the parenthetical “admitting PCR evidence ... and indicating that ‘deficiencies’ [in the PCR procedure] go to the weight to be given the DNA evidence, not its admissibility.” Id. The Tenth Circuit also cites its own unpublished opinion in Stills v. Dorsey, 7 Fed.Appx. 856, 859 (10th Cir.2001), as “indicating that ‘objections to the reliability of the PCR analysis go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.’” Id. at 781. This part of Tyson Foods provides some support for the Government’s position that challenges to the application of a reliable methodology go to weight and not admissibility.

The Court has considered several additional Tenth Circuit cases which set forth the “any step” language.

*1247 Tyson Foods quoted an earlier Tenth Circuit opinion which quoted Paoli IP. Mitchell v. Gencorp Inc., 165 F.3d 778 (10th Cir.1999). In Mitchell , the Tenth Circuit affirmed the exclusion of expert testimony in a toxic tort case. The plaintiffs’ experts merely gave opinions that a different chemical than the defendant’s chemicals causes a different type of leukemia than the decedent’s leukemia; the experts’ conclusions that the defendant’s chemicals caused the decedent’s type of leukemia therefore constituted unwarranted extrapolation. Id. at 781-83 . The Tenth Circuit stated that this opinion evidence was connected to the existing data only by the “ipse dixit” of the expert; therefore, there was “simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinions offered,” under Joiner. 165 F.3d at 782 ; Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146 , 118 S.Ct. 512 . Although the Mitchell court did quote the “any step” language from Paoli II, the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Mitchell — as in Tyson Foods — rested solidly on Joiner .

In Cornwell, the driver of an SUV had been killed when she hit a locomotive. Cornwell v. Union Pac. R.R., 453 Fed.Appx. 829 (10th Cir.2012) (unpublished). To determine whether the victim’s view of the oncoming train was blocked, the expert and his assistant drove the same route while videotaping and photographing from a driver’s perspective; however, they used a minivan instead of an SUV, and they speculated on the tracking of the victim’s eyes as she approached the railroad crossing. Id. at 833 . The district court excluded the proffered expert evidence, ruling that it was unreliable under Daubert . The Tenth Circuit affirmed, stating that the district court’s ruling was supported by Tenth Circuit precedent and caselaw from other circuits; the cited cases affirmed exclusion of expert testimony because the experts conducted tests with a different truck, or reached a conclusion based on published material about the critical interi- or dimensions of a car instead of conducting an actual test inside the car. Id. These were the Tenth Circuit’s examples to illustrate the principle that “ ‘any step that renders the analysis unreliable renders the expert’s testimony inadmissible.’ ” Id. (quoting Tyson Foods, 565 F.3d at 780 ). These cited cases, Cornwell , and Tyson Foods, illustrate that the Tenth Circuit interprets the “any step” principle to refer to the same type of deficient evidence described by Joiner as an “analytical gap.”

The Court concludes that the Tenth Circuit cases, though they do not directly address the issue raised by Defendant, do not generally support Defendant’s argument. Taken out of context, the “any step” language may appear to do so, but close examination shows that the Tenth Circuit cases appear to view this as essentially a restatement of “too great an analytical gap” under Joiner . The Joiner issue — the lack of sufficient connection between the conclusions and data — is a different issue from the level of scrutiny for reviewing the application of a reliable methodology.

. (b) Caselaw from other circuits

Since the Tenth Circuit cases cited do not directly address the issue, the Court looks to caselaw from other circuits. The “any step” language quoted by the Tenth Circuit in Dodge and Tyson Foods comes from a Third Circuit case, Paoli II; since the Tenth Circuit adopted this principle, it is important to see how the Third Circuit and other courts interpret it when addressing challenges to the application of DNA methodology.

Well-reasoned caselaw holds that a court should not review the application of a reli *1248 able methodology under the same Daubert analysis as the methodology itself. Review of the cases reveals a split, with the Third and Eighth Circuits taking a more conservative view and requiring some review of challenges to procedures before expert evidence is admitted — while many other cases hold that challenges to the application of a reliable methodology go to the weight of the expert evidence, not its admissibility. Neither side of the split supports Defendant’s argument.

The Third Circuit, in an opinion issued in 1990, stated that if a “challenged procedure is more accurately described as an application of an accepted methodology,” the challenge is a matter for resolution by the factfinder and goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility; but if “the allegation is that a reliable methodology was so altered as to skew the methodology itself,” the issue goes to admissibility of the evidence. In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 916 F.2d 829, 858 (3d Cir.1990) (emphasis added) [hereinafter Paoli I ]. In 1994, based on Daubert , the case was again before the Third Circuit. In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 745 (3d Cir.1994) [hereinafter Paoli II ]. After Daubert , the Third Circuit believed that a clear-cut distinction between a methodology and its application was not viable. The Paoli II court stated that “any step that renders the analysis unreliable under the Daubert factors renders the expert’s testimony inadmissible. This is true whether the step completely changes a reliable methodology or merely misapplies that methodology.14” 35 F.3d at 745 . This quotation, considered out of context, states a tautology: Unreliable evidence is inadmissible. The question remains what kind of step “renders the analysis unreliable” and renders the evidence inadmissible. Paoli II answers this question: only a major misstep justifies exclusion of evidence. Footnote 14 states: “Of course, if a court finds that an expert has employed a methodology only slightly different from a methodology that the court thinks is clearly reliable, the court should be more likely to accept the altered methodology than if it was evaluating that methodology as an original matter.” 35 F.3d at 745 n. 14. And the Paoli II court further limited the “any step” language by saying that evidence should not be excluded for a minor flaw in application:

Thus, as we explained above, we think that the primary limitation on the judge’s admissibility determinations is that the judge should not exclude evidence simply because he or she thinks that there is a flaw in the expert’s investigative process which renders the expert’s conclusions incorrect. The judge should only exclude the evidence if the flaw is large enough that the expert lacks “good grounds” for his or her conclusions.

35 F.3d at 746 . Careful consideration of the entire opinions shows that Paoli I and Paoli II are not so different as at first appears. Despite Paoli II’s statement that after Daubert the distinction between a methodology and its application is no longer viable, the import of the entire Paoli II opinion is still that a flaw in the procedures, or in the application of the methodology, does not render the expert evidence inadmissible unless it is a major flaw which undermines the entire analysis.

In a later case, the Third Circuit explained and clarified Paoli II. The Third Circuit stated that in Paoli II it had “ ‘cautioned’ ” that the standard for determining reliability “ ‘is not that high,’ ” and “ ‘is lower than the merits standard of correctness’ ”; the grounds for an expert’s opinion “ ‘merely have to be good’ ” — not “ ‘perfect.’ ” In re TMI Litig., 193 F.3d 613, 665 (3d Cir.1999) (quoting Paoli II, 35 F.3d at 744-45 ). An expert opinion need *1249 not be “supported by the best methodology or unassailable research.” Id. In applying the “any step” principle of Paoli II, the TMI court held that expert testimony was inadmissible because the expert admitted that an essential element of his analysis was correlation by additional studies; when the expert admitted that there had been no additional studies, this missing correlation rendered the methodology unreliable and the expert’s opinion inadmissible. Id. at 694-95. This was an example of the principle that “any step” may render expert testimony inadmissible; omission of an essential element of an analysis was significant enough to “completely change” a reliable methodology or to “misapply” that methodology.

As the Second Circuit explained Paoli II, a “minor flaw in an expert’s reasoning or a slight modification of an otherwise reliable method” does not render expert evidence inadmissible. Amorgianos v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 266-67 (2d Cir.2002) (emphasis added). The expert evidence is inadmissible only if “ ‘the flaw is large enough that the expert lacks ‘good grounds’ for his or her conclusions.’ ” Id. at 267 (quoting Paoli II, 35 F.3d at 746 ).

The Eighth Circuit takes the same approach as the Third Circuit. In Martinez, the Eighth Circuit reconciled the two competing principles set forth by the Daubert Court: the need for the trial court to ensure that scientific evidence is “ ‘not only relevant but reliable,”’ and the need to respect the role of the jury in “ ‘the adversary system’ ” under the more liberal Daubert standard for admissibility. United States v. Martinez, 3 F.3d 1191 (8th Cir.1993) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589, 596 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 ). • If the application of the methodology is challenged, the trial court must determine whether any error in application “so infected the procedure as to make the results unreliable.” Id. at 1198. An “alleged error in the application of a reliable methodology should provide the basis for exclusion of the opinion only if that error negates the basis for the reliability of the principle itself.” Id. (emphasis added). The Martinez court stated that it agreed with the Third Circuit’s approach in Paoli I. Id.

A later Eighth Circuit case applied Martinez in rejecting a challenge to PCR DNA evidence. The defendant in Beasley argued that PCR testing did not meet the standards of admissibility under Daubert , and that even if it did, the protocol and procedures employed by the Minnesota laboratory were inadequate. United States v. Beasley, 102 F.3d 1440, 1445, 1448 (8th Cir.1996) (alleged inadequacies included infrequent proficiency testing, insufficient testing to check results and demonstrate compliance with proper procedures, failure to maintain records of errors). The Eighth Circuit held that the reliability of PCR DNA analysis was sufficiently well established for courts to take judicial notice of it in future cases. Id. at 1448 . And because the defendant failed to show that the alleged deficiencies in the application of the PCR methodology would skew the methodology itself, the Eighth Circuit held that the challenges went to the weight of the DNA evidence, not its admissibility. Id. at 1448 .

The Eighth Circuit again applied this approach when a defendant challenged the reliability of new kits for applying the PCR/STR methodology. United States v. Gipson, 383 F.3d 689, 696-97 (8th Cir.2004). The challenge to the reliability of the Profiler Plus and Cofiler kits was a challenge to the “application of a scientific methodology,” and not a challenge to the reliability of the PCR/STR methodology itself. Id. All that was required, therefore, was a determination that the kits were not *1250 so unreliable that they materially altered the methodology itself.

Other courts follow this approach. See, e.g., United States v. Morrow, 374 F.Supp.2d 51, 62 (D.D.C.2005) (initial inquiry into expert’s application of the scientific principle or methodology was required, but any error in applying protocols precludes admission only if “error so infected the procedure as to make the results unreliable,” Martinez, 3 F.3d at 1198 ); State v. Langill, 157 N.H. 77 , 945 A.2d 1, 9-10 (2008) (even multiple flaws in expert’s application of a methodology render evidence inadmissible only if they “contaminate the reliability of an expert’s conclusions,” so infecting “‘the procedure as to make the results unreliable’ ” (quoting Martinez, 3 F.3d at 1198 )).

These cases, including those of the Eighth and Third Circuit, require the trial court to undertake some review of the application of a reliable methodology, but only allow exclusion for a flaw so large as to undermine the reliability of the methodology itself. See Langill, 945 A.2d at 9 (discussing similar approach of Eighth and Third Circuits). This conservative approach places great emphasis on Daubert’s language that the trial court must “ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence” is reliable.

Other cases take a more liberal approach to admission of expert evidence over challenges to the procedure, or application of the methodology — emphasizing the liberal thrust of the Federal Rules and the emphasis on the factfinder’s role in assessing and weighing evidence. For instance, the First Circuit took the approach that “any flaws in [an expert’s] application of an otherwise reliable methodology went to weight and credibility and not to admissibility.” United States v. Shea, 211 F.3d 658, 668 (1st Cir.2000). The First Circuit stated, “Most circuits that have spoken have agreed with this approach, relying on the view that ‘cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof is the proper challenge to ‘shaky but admissible evidence.’ ” Id. (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 ) (citation omitted). The federal district court had earlier issued a widely cited and well-reasoned opinion in the same case. United States v. Shea, 957 F.Supp. 331 (D.N.H.1997), aff'd, 159 F.3d 37 (1st Cir.1998). The district court in Shea reasoned that Rule 702 required different treatment of a challenge to the methodology and a challenge to the application of that methodology:

Almost any challenge to an expert’s conclusions can be redefined as a dispute over methods. However, Rule 702’s reliability requirement distinguishes between a claim that an expert’s methods are unsound and a claim that scientifically sound methods have been applied improperly in a particular case. A claim that scientific methods are unsound must be addressed initially by the trial judge, while a claim that scientifically sound methods have been applied improperly ordinarily should be left for the jury to resolve unless the alleged “error negates the basis for the reliability of the principle itself.” United States v. Martinez, 3 F.3d 1191, 1198 (8th Cir.1993).

Shea, 957 F.Supp. at 337 . The defendant in Shea argued: that PCR analysis was not reliable for DNA mixtures, that the FBI’s testing protocols could result in typing errors by specifying incorrect amplification and typing temperatures, that the government had not demonstrated that the FBI laboratory has an acceptably low error rate, and that there were deficiencies in the FBI’s procedures for quality control and evidence handling. Id. at 338-40 . The district court broadly stated that it *1251 was unnecessary to address the merits of these arguments, because challenges to application go to weight and not admissibility of the evidence. Id. at 340-41 .

Other courts also hold that challenges to the application of a methodology go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. See, e.g., United States v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 800 (2d Cir.1992); United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 563 (6th Cir.1993); In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517, 530 (6th Cir.2008); United States v. Chischilly, 30 F.3d 1144, 1154 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Hicks, 103 F.3d 837, 846 (9th Cir.1996), overruled on other grounds by United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499 (9th Cir.2008); Quiet Technology DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd., 326 F.3d 1333, 1344-46 (11th Cir.2003); Rosenfeld v. Oceania Cruises, Inc., 654 F.3d 1190, 1193-94 (11th Cir.2011); Trala, 162 F.Supp.2d at 349 ; People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68, 81 (Colo.2001) (en banc). These courts emphasize that Daubert requires that factual determinations and flaws in application of generally reliable methodology are to be handled by cross-examination at trial and presentation of contrary evidence. See, e.g., Jakobetz, 955 F.2d at 800 ; Quiet Technology DC-8, Inc., 326 F.3d at 1345 .

(c) Other caselaw cited by Defendant

Additional cases cited by Defendant are not persuasive. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 87-97] Defendant’s often cursory citations, many of them to Frye cases, do not support his argument. Defendant argues: “The focus on the specific methods and procedures used in the particular case is universal in Daubert and Frye litigation.” [Doc. No. 442, p. 94] Defendant is incorrect in arguing that the same approach toward admissibility is followed by Frye and Daubert cases. Frye cases intentionally apply a philosophy directly contrary to Daubert and the “liberal thrust” of the Federal Rules, consciously setting a higher bar to admission of expert evidence. As discussed in Daubert, Frye cases set an “austere standard, absent from, and incompatible with, the Federal Rules of Evidence.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . In determining how courts determine admissibility and what standard must be met, Frye cases are not persuasive in federal court. 7

Nor do the federal cases cited by Defendant support his argument.

Defendant cites Shea, Hicks, and Chischilly . [Doc. No. 442, p. 90] These federal cases are discussed above as examples of cases holding that challenges to the application of a methodology go to the weight of expert evidence, not its admissibility. These cases support a contrary approach to the one Defendant advocates.

Defendant relies on one statement in Beasley : “‘[T]he PCR method of DNA typing using the DQ alpha Amplitype test kit and the Polymarker test kit has achieved general acceptance within the forensic science community.’ ” Beasley, 102 *1252 F.3d at 1446 . [Doc. No. 442, p. 95 (citing as page 1445 of Beasley) ] But this quotation is from the trial court’s conclusions; as discussed above, the Eighth Circuit opinion in Beasley does not support Defendant’s argument.

Defendant cites a Fourth Circuit opinion affirming the exclusion of expert testimony from a state Fire Marshall that an electric blanket caused a fire — when the Fire Marshall failed to examine and utterly failed to exclude as causes of the fire a burning candle, a lamp, an extension cord, a wall outlet or its wiring. Bryte v. American Household, Inc., 429 F.3d 469 , 472-73, 476-78 (4th Cir.2005). [Doc. No. 442, p. 88] The proposed expert testimony in Bryte was thus speculative in the extreme; in addition, exclusion was justified by lack of a sufficient factual basis.

Defendant cites the district court opinion in United States v. Lowe, 954 F.Supp. 401, 411 (D.Mass.1996). [Doc. No. 442, p. 95] The defendant in Lowe argued that the use of chemiluminescence instead of autoradiography in the detection phase of RFLP analysis was unreliable under Daubert ; the government responded that a “full-blown Daubert analysis” was not required. Id. The district court stated that it was not resolving this “semantic debate,” and was required to “conduct a threshold evaluation of the new protocol to ensure reliability.” Id. at 412. The court stated: “While the protocol may not rise to the heights of a new scientific ‘methodology,’ the Daubert factors are helpful in determining its reliability.” Id. Lowe suggests some support for Defendant’s argument, but does not clearly support Defendant. The district court declined to determine whether chemiluminescence was a new methodology or merely a new protocol, merely determining that the evidence was admissible because it met the Daubert standard for reliability. Id. at 416.

Defendant cites a New Mexico District Court case, Coronado-Cervantes: “In the absence of clear directive from the Tenth Circuit, this Court finds that under Daubert’s second ‘relevance’ prong, compliance with standard protocol in applying the RFLP technique is essential and goes to admissibility, rather than merely to the weight of DNA evidence as urged by the government.” United States v. Coronado-Cervantes, 912 F.Supp. 497, 500 (D.N.M.1996). [Doc. No. 442, pp. 97, 100] The Coronado-Cervantes court had recognized that the Tenth Circuit in Davis “expressly declined to address the split in the circuits over whether compliance with protocol is an issue of admissibility or weight.” Id. After stating that the court would conclude that compliance with standard protocol goes to admissibility, however, the Coronado-Cervantes court stated that the defendant did not challenge the FBI’s compliance with standard protocol. Id. Thus the statement on which Defendant relies is dictum.

Defendant cites Government of Virgin Islands v. Byers, 941 F.Supp. 513 (D.Vi. 1996). [Doc. No. 442, p. 90] The district court in Byers upheld the admission of RFLP DNA evidence over the defendant’s criticism that the FBI should have adopted NRC I’s recommendation in 1992 to use the ceiling principle instead of the product rule in statistical calculations; the district court held that the challenge goes mostly to the weight of the DNA evidence, not its admissibility. Id. at 524, 528 . Byers does not support Defendant’s argument.

Defendant cites United States v. Gaines, 979 F.Supp. 1429 (S.D.Fla.1997). [Doc. No. 442, p. 90] The district court in Gaines held that PCR DNA testing results were admissible. Id. at 1441 . In performing its analysis, the court did separately deter *1253 mine whether sample processing, match determination, and random match probability calculations met the requirements of Daubert. Id. at 1437 . The decision may lend slight support to Defendant’s argument, but the court did not reach a holding on the issues raised in Defendant’s case.

Defendant also appears to assert that an elevated level of review (“extreme circumspection”) is required in a capital case before the Court allows DNA evidence to be presented to the jury. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 30-31, 108, 145, 147] But Defendant does not provide relevant, persuasive authority to support this assertion. Defendant argues that juries may be overwhelmed by DNA evidence, which may “ ‘assume a posture of mystic infallibility in the eyes of a jury,’ ” quoting People v. Venegas, 18 Cal.4th 47 , 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 262, 286 , 954 P.2d 525 (1998) (quoting People v. Kelly, 17 Cal.3d 24 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 149 , 549 P.2d 1240 (1976)). [Doc. No 442, p. 31] But Venegas is quoting the argument from Kelly about why the Frye test is appropriate; Kelly is the case setting forth California’s adoption of the Kelly/Frye test for expert evidence. In the passage quoted from Kelly , the California court is explaining that the “primary advantage” of the Frye test “lies in its essentially conservative nature”; “Frye was deliberately intended to interpose a substantial obstacle to the unrestrained admission of evidence based upon new scientific principles.” Kelly, 130 Cal.Rptr. at 149 , 549 P.2d 1240 . These are, of course, the arguments explicitly rejected by the Daubert court. Defendant also quotes Venegas, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d at 284 , 954 P.2d 525 , for the proposition that “DNA is different.” [Doc. No. 442, p. 31] In this passage, the Venegas court was merely explaining that the Kelly/Frye test is intended to prevent the jury from uncritically accepting scientific evidence that is “unusually difficult for laypersons to evaluate”; jurors can understand and evaluate many types of evidence, but “DNA evidence is different” and a prerequisite to its admission is technical testimony from experts to show that correct scientific procedures were followed. Venegas, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d at 283-84 , 954 P.2d 525 .

In support of his general argument that a higher standard for admission of scientific evidence is required because this is a capital offense, Defendant cites United States v. Green, 405 F.Supp.2d 104, 109 (D.Mass.2005). [Doc. No. 442, pp. 93, 132] Defendant quotes the district court in Green : “[W]hen liberty hangs in the balance — and, in the case of the defendants facing the death penalty, life itself — the standards should be higher than were met in this case, and than have been imposed across the country.” Id. at 109 . Despite this statement, however, the Green court admitted the evidence at issue — because the court was confident that admission was in line with “precedents across the country” and that “any other decision will be rejected by appellate courts.” Id. All the court in Green did was to state a personal reluctance to follow what it recognized as well-established precedent; Green does not support Defendant’s argument that a higher standard for admission of scientific evidence applies in capital cases.

The Court concludes that Defendant has not demonstrated that a heightened standard of admissibility applies to this scientific evidence. “[Application of the ordinary rules of evidence generally does not impermissibly infringe upon a capital defendant’s constitutional rights,” including the Eighth Amendment. People v. Eubanks, 53 Cal.4th 110 , 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 795 , 266 P.3d 301, 328 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court concludes that Defendant has not provided relevant and persuasive authority for his assertion that an elevated *1254 standard of review of DNA evidence is warranted here. See Cahill v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 610 F.3d 1235, 1238-39 (10th Cir.2010) (court will not address conclusory arguments unsupported by citation to relevant authority). In this case, as in every case, the Court carefully considers and reviews the parties’ arguments about admissibility of evidence.

(d) Policy and principles underlying Rule 702 and Daubert

Defendant’s argument requires the Court to determine the extent of its role as gatekeeper. An authoritative treatise recognizes and discusses this issue, observing that “the extent of the trial judge’s gatekeeping function” is “[pjerhaps Daubert’s most serious ambiguity.” 29 Charles Alan Wright & Victor James Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure § 6266, at 287 (1997 & Supp.2012). Daubert does state that “the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . According to Wright, the broadest reading of Daubert is that all reliability issues are resolved by the gatekeeper judge and go to the admissibility of the evidence — including challenges to the methodology itself and challenges to the application of the methodology. 29 Wright & Gold, supra, § 6266, at 288, 290. Defendant McCluskey does not cite Wright, but Defendant’s argument takes this approach — what Wright characterizes as “the broadest reading of Daubert.”

Despite Daubert’s statement that the trial judge must ensure that any scientific evidence admitted is reliable, other language in Daubert shows that the Court intended the jury to resolve many reliability issues — including those considered under the Frye standard as too difficult or overwhelming for a jury. Id. at 288. The Daubert Court rejected the argument that “befuddled juries” would be “confounded by absurd and irrational pseudoscientific assertions.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595-96 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . The Court stated that this argument reflected an “overly pessimistic [view] about the capabilities of the jury and of the adversary system generally.” Id. at 596 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . And the Daubert Court emphasized that it was the jury’s role to decide the reliability of questionable scientific evidence: “Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Id. Wright discusses and resolves this apparent conflict within Daubert . 29 Wright & Gold, § 6266, at 288-89.

Wright states that the “narrowest reading of Daubert is that it reaffirms in most cases the jury’s traditional power to weigh expert testimony in light of challenges to its reliability.” Id. at 289. Under this interpretation, the trial judge decides the scientific validity of underlying principles and methodology; once that validity is demonstrated, other reliability issues go to the weight — not the admissibility — of the evidence. Id. And the gatekeeping role may be further reduced because, as Daubert observed, judicial notice may be taken of the validity of well-established science. Id. (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 n. 11, 113 S.Ct. 2786 ).

Wright concludes that “the broadest reading of Daubert” — the one which Defendant McCluskey advocates — “should be rejected.” Id. at 290. “[I]t is inconsistent with both policy and precedent to make the admissibility of all expert testimony depend upon a showing that the expert’s testimony is completely reliable in every respect.” Id. at 290-91. “Since Daubert does not explicitly take such a position, *1255 and nothing in the Evidence Rules compels it, it seems unlikely that the Court intended such a departure from past practice.” Id. at 291. First, this broad interpretation conflicts with the policy of preserving the jury’s traditional power to weigh evidence and determine credibility of witnesses. Id. at 263, 289. The other language quoted above from Daubert (“Vigorous cross-examination ....”) strongly suggests that the jury is to decide many issues of reliability. Second, this broad interpretation would raise the bar for admission of expert testimony from the prior requirements under Frye — contrary to Daubert’s intention to liberalize admission of expert evidence. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 (recognizing the “liberal thrust” of the Rules and their “general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers” to expert evidence). Wright observes, “In overturning Frye, it is unlikely that the Court in Daubert sought to make the admission of scientific evidence harder.” 29 Wright & Gold, supra, § 6266, at 291.

Wright generally favors the narrow reading of Daubert , citing the principle that “trial judges are gatekeepers, not armed guards.” Id. § 6266, at 88 & n. 79.2 (Supp.2012) (citing Ruiz-Troche v. Pepsi Cola, 161 F.3d 77, 86 (1st Cir.1998)). Another case cited by Wright emphasizes this point: “ ‘[Tjrial judges acting as gatekeepers under Daubert must not assume “the role of. St. Peter at the gates of heaven, performing a searching inquiry into the depth of an expert witness’s soul” and thereby usurp “the ageless role of the jury” in evaluating witness credibility and weight of the evidence.’” Id. n. 79.2 (quoting Guild v. General Motors Corp., 53 F.Supp.2d 363, 369-70 (W.D.N.Y.1999) (quoting McCullock v. H.B. Fuller Co., 61 F.3d 1038, 1045 (2d Cir.1995))).

The Court concludes that Defendant’s position runs contrary to the policy and principles underlying Rule 702 and Daubert .

(e) Conclusion on standard for review of challenges to procedures

Based on review of the arguments, the caselaw, and Rule 702’s policies, the Court rejects Defendant’s argument that each part of the procedure and each item used in the procedure are subject to the same Daubert analysis for admissibility as the PCR/STR methodology. The Court concludes that well-reasoned caselaw supports a distinction between methodology and application of that methodology. If the Court were to scrutinize each procedure and each item used with the same intensity, and under the same standards, as the court reviews the methodology itself, the court would run afoul of the philosophy and principles of Daubert — to respect the “liberal thrust” of the Federal Rules by “relaxing the traditional barriers to ‘opinion’ testimony.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 588 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . Under Daubert , the barriers to admission of expert testimony are to be lowered; under Daubert the jury is to take a greater role in making reliability determinations and assessing expert evidence.

As discussed above, the approach.of the Eighth and Third Circuits is somewhat more restrictive than the approach of the First and other Circuits. In view of the challenges raised by Defendant in this case and discussed below, however, it is not necessary for this Court to choose between these two approaches. Even under the more conservative approach of the Third and Eighth Circuits, Defendant’s challenges do not rise to the level of flaws that would undermine or skew the PCR/STR methodology itself.

2. NMDPS Laboratory Standards and Controls

The Government states that the NMDPS DNA Laboratory used the follow *1256 ing in this case': Quantifier Duo DNA Quantification Kit; AmFISTR Identifiler PCR Amplification Kit; Applied Biosystems 7500 Real-Time PCR SDS Software, version 1.2.3.; Applied Biosystems 3130 Genetic Analyzer Data Collection Software, version 3.0; Applied Biosystems GeneMapper ID Software, version 3.2; FBI Popstats software, version 5.7.4; ABI Prism 3130 Genetic Analyzer. [Doc. No. 547, pp. 7-8; Defs Ex. G6] The Government states that the systems and machines used are “the industry standard for DNA testing.” [Doc. No. 547, p. 4]

The Government states that the NMDPS Laboratory follows the Quality Assurance Standards (QAS) originally issued in 1998 by the FBI Laboratory’s DNA Advisory Board (DAB), and revised in 2007 and 2011 by the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM). [Doc. No. 547, pp. 18, 22 (citing Defendant’s Ex. K6 & L6)] The NMDPS Laboratory is audited annually for compliance with these standards. [Doc. No. 547, p. 18 (citing Defendant’s Ex. K6 & L6) ] The NMDPS lab conducts an internal audit every other year, with an external audit by scientists from other DNA laboratories conducted in the intervening years. [Doc. No. 547, p. 18] “These assessments are a systematic examination, conducted pursuant to FBI guidelines, which audits the facilities and equipment, the training of staff, the laboratories’ written operating and technical procedures, and the casework reports and supporting documentation.” [Doc. No. 547, p. 18 (citing Defs Ex. K6 & L6) ]

The Government states that the NMDPS Laboratory is accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB), and was accredited at the time of testing. [Gov’s Ex. 1 (6/25/12); Doc. No. 547, pp. 9, 19] “The accreditation process not only involves the audits, but also whether the laboratory demonstrates and maintains good lab practices including evidence-handling procedures and preservation of chain-of-custody.” [Doc. No. 547, p. 19]

The NMDPS Laboratory participates in proficiency tests of its analysts’ performance in DNA analysis procedures. [Doc. No. 547, p. 19] “The QAS, issued by the FBI and followed by the NMDPS Laboratory, requires that each DNA analyst undergo an external proficiency test at least twice a year.” [Doc. No. 547, p. 19] All casework conducted by NMDPS Lab analyst, Carrie Davis, is reviewed and confirmed by a second analyst before a case report is released. [Doc. No. 547, p. 20 (citing Defs Ex. M6 (Chapter 15))] The Government states that, in addition to following the FBI’s QAS, the NMDPS Lab has established rigorous standards for technical procedures and policies, undergoing proficiency testing, internal validation, and performance checks. [Doc. No. 547, pp. 22-23 (citing Defs Ex. K6 & L6) ] In addition, the NMDPS Lab routinely conducts internal validations on the equipment, and reviews and adopts standards suggested by SWGDAM and external literature. [Doc. No. 547, p. 23 (citing Gov’s Ex. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 (6/25/12)) ]

The Government confirms that all of these controls were followed in this case. [Doc. No. 547, p. 23] These controls and standards support the Court’s conclusion that the PCR/STR testing employed by the NMDPS Lab meets the standard of reliability under Rule 702 and Daubert. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 (existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation is a factor for court to consider).

3. Identifiler and Quantifiler kits

Defendant argues that the kits used by the NMDPS Laboratory, the Identifiler *1257 and Quantifiler Duo, are “unreliable” and “novel” parts of the “methodology,” which must be shown to be reliable under Daubert before the Government’s DNA evidence is admissible — or, that even if they are not part of the methodology, the kits must be reviewed and approved under the same Daubert analysis applicable to a methodology. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 31 n. 10, 87-98, 167] Defendant claims that the Identifiler kit “employed technology and test procedures substantially different from previous DNA testing methods.” [Doc. No. 442, p. 16] Defendant generally claims that the Quantifiler Duo kit is “unreliable,” citing one study and also saying that the defense is unaware of whether some suggested steps to ensure accuracy were followed. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 45-52] Defendant claims that unless these particular kits are found rehable under the full Daubert analysis, the Government’s DNA evidence is inadmissible.

Defendant argues that, although four cases “specifically upheld the admissibility of the Profiler Plus and/or Cofiler test kits ... it is important to note that none of the cited cases addressed ... the Quantifiler and Identifiler kits” which were used in this case. [Doc. No. 442, p. 96] In a footnote, Defendant observes that only one case, Jackson, addressed the admissibility of the Identifiler kit. [Doc. No. 442, p. 96 n. 53] People v. Jackson, 163 Cal.App.4th 313 , 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 474 (2008).

The Government responds that the California case, Jackson , determined that the use of a new kit, the Identifiler, did not change the methodology but increased the accuracy and efficiency of the analysis. [Doc. No. 547, p. 35] The Government alternatively argues that the Identifiler and Quantifiler Duo kits have been sufficiently validated and shown to be reliable. [Doc. No. 547, pp. 36-40]

In assuming that only caselaw specifically addressing the Identifiler and Quantifiler Duo kits is relevant, Defendant assumes his conclusion: that this Court, in its gatekeeping role, must subject any procedure or instrumentality used in applying a methodology to the same Daubert analysis for admissibility as the methodology itself. But this Court has concluded that a challenge to the application of the methodology is treated differently than a challenge to the reliability of the methodology itself. Alternatively, Defendant is assuming that these kits are part of the methodology. The Court also finds that the Identifiler and Quantifiler Duo kits are not part of the methodology under Daubert , but are instead part of the procedures used in applying that methodology.

Under the legal standard adopted above, the Court concludes that Defendant’s challenges to the Quantifiler Duo and Identifiler kits go to the weight of the DNA evidence, not its admissibility — unless the challenges would demonstrate such a major flaw that it would undermine or skew the PCR/STR methodology itself. The challenges Defendant makes do not rise to the level of undermining, or skewing, the PCR/STR methodology; Defendant’s challenges therefore go to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence, and are for the jury to assess and resolve.

Courts addressing the use of new amplification and quantification kits have focused, not on the relatively minor differences between each kit, but instead on their common function in the application of DNA analysis. In a frequently cited case, the district court of Delaware determined that “the Cofiler and Profiler materials kits do not represent a separate part of the typing process, but rather, simply contain materials for beginning the PCR process.” Tra la, 162 F.Supp.2d at 346 ; see John M. Butler, Short Tandem Repeat *1258 Typing Technologies Used in Human Identity Testing, BioTechniques, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Oct.2007) [Gov’s Ex. 10 (6/25/12), pp. 1-2]. The Traía court concluded that challenges to the reliability of the particular type of kit used go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. Trala, 162 F.Supp.2d at 346 (citing People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68, 81 (Colo.2001)).

In Shreck , the DNA evidence was derived from a PCR/STR multiplex system — the Profiler Plus and Cofiler kits, which use “a combination sixplex and nineplex system.” Shreck, 22 P.3d at 80 . The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that multiplex testing is sufficiently reliable to be admissible under Colorado Rule 702 (“CRE 702,” which is identical to Fed. R.Evid. 702). Id. The trial court had found that “triplexing,” which is a form of multiplexing, is generally accepted, but held that the “sixplex” and “nineplex” systems used in the Shreck case were not sufficiently validated or reviewed to be admissible. Id. at 81 . The Colorado Supreme Court specifically disapproved of the trial court’s distinction between these different systems. Id. Citing Dauberb, the Colorado Supreme Court stated, “Such a fine distinction is not required under CRE 702’s liberal standard for admissibility.” Id. Since a kit is simply one tool for carrying out the PCR/STR methodology, challenges to the reliability of any particular kit — like challenges to other procedures— go to the weight of the evidence, and not to its admissibility. Shreck, 22 P.3d at 80-82 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Ewell, 252 F.Supp.2d 104, 111 (D.N.J.2003) (Cofiler and Profiler kits “merely provide the materials necessary to perform the PCR amplification process, and thus, the kits need not independently meet the Daubert standard of admissibility”); United States v. Williams, 2008 WL 5382264 , *15 (C.D.Cal.2008) (unpublished; non-precedential) (holding court need not undergo Daubert analysis for reliability of a new PCR/STR test kit because the PCR/ STR methodology remained the same when different kits were used which analyzed more loci than prior testing kits; in fact, kits analyzing more loci were more accurate). The Court notes that the Shreck court’s analysis is in accordance with well-reasoned cases holding that challenges to procedure or application generally go to weight and not admissibility; the Shreck court cites Hicks and Shea, discussed in preceding sections of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

The Eighth Circuit also held that a defendant’s challenge to the kits used constituted “a challenge to the application of the STR methodology” — not a challenge to the methodology itself. United States v. Gipson, 383 F.3d 689, 697 (8th Cir.2004) (emphasis added). As discussed in the preceding section, the Eighth Circuit applies a slightly more conservative approach to a challenge to procedures, holding that exclusion of evidence is warranted “only if the methodology was so altered [by a deficient application] as to skew the methodology itself.” Id. at 697 . The Eighth Circuit determined that the kits “certainly” were not so unreliable that their use resulted in a material alteration of the PCR/ STR methodology. Id. This conclusion was easily reached, because the magistrate judge’s conclusion went farther than necessary; the magistrate judge had concluded that the kits would even satisfy the Daubert reliability standard. Id. It is important to note that the Eighth Circuit did not require the kits to satisfy the Dauberb standard; all that was required was a finding that the challenges to the new kits did not allege such a major flaw that it could skew the methodology itself. Id.

In addition, caselaw from jurisdictions applying the Frye test supports the con *1259 elusion that new kits do not constitute a change in methodology and are therefore not subject to the same analysis for admissibility as the methodology itself. See People v. Jackson, 163 Cal.App.4th 313 , 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 474, 479-82 (2008) (holding Identifier was “new and improved version” of same methodology as previous kits; therefore, Identifier did not have to meet Frye “general acceptance” test); see also People v. Hill, 89 Cal.App.4th 48 , 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 110, 117-19 (2001); People v. Henderson, 107 Cal.App.4th 769 , 132 Cal. Rptr.2d 255, 262 (2003); People v. Stevey, 209 Cal.App.4th 1400 , 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 6-8, 14 (2012). These cases hold that challenges to a new kit go to the weight of the DNA evidence, not its admissibility. See also Lemour v. State, 802 So.2d 402, 407-08 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001); State v. Whittey, 149 N.H. 463 , 821 A.2d 1086, 1092, 1095 (2003); State v. Russell, 125 Wash.2d 24 , 882 P.2d 747, 760-61, 768 (1994); State v. Gore, 143 Wash.2d 288 , 21 P.3d 262, 272-73 (2001), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hughes, 154 Wash.2d 118 , 110 P.3d 192 (2005); State v. Van Adams, 194 Ariz. 408 , 984 P.2d 16, 26-27 (1999).

Defendant’s Reply erroneously asserts that the Government cannot rely on a Frye case here for the same reason that the Government argues Defendant cannot rely on Venegas on other points — because Jackson and Venegas apply the Frye test instead of Daubert . [Doc. No. 562, p. 6] 8 In Section D(1)(c), supra, the Court explained that Defendant’s reliance on Frye cases was unpersuasive, because Frye eases intentionally and consciously choose to set a higher bar for admission of expert evidence than Daubert does; therefore, Frye cases are not relevant in determining the (minimum) standards of admissibility. But Frye cases are persuasive here on a different point: the determination that new kits constitute minor changes in procedure, which are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as a new methodology.

The Court finds these opinions, particularly Trata, Shreck, and Gipson , well reasoned and persuasive. The Court concludes that Defendant’s challenges to the Identifier and Quantifier Duo kits constitute challenges to procedure or application, rather than challenges to the PCR/STR methodology itself; the Court also concludes that these challenges do not rise to the level of alleging major flaws that would skew or undermine the PCR/STR methodology. Defendant’s challenges therefore go to the weight of the DNA evidence, not to its admissibility.

Moreover, even if it were necessary for this Court to make a preliminary determination under Daubert of the scientific reliability of the Identifier and Quantifier Duo kits, the Court would find that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of reliability. First, the Identifier kit has been tested, subjected to peer review and analysis, and shown to have an acceptable error rate. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 (factors for Rule 702 inquiry). The manufacturer, Applied Biosystems, performed developmental validation experiments according to TWGDAM guidelines. [Gov’s Ex. 12 (6/25/12)] The Government states that the NMDPS Laboratory conducted internal validation. *1260 [Doc. No. 547, p. 36] The Government provided abstracts of a number of studies demonstrating external validations of the kits. [Doc. No. 547, pp. 36-37; Gov’s Ex. 13 & 14 (6/25/12) ] The Identifier kit, after review and evaluation by a panel of FBI personnel, was approved and accepted for use by NDIS (National DNA Index System), which is part of CODIS (Combined DNA Index System). NDIS, DNA Data Acceptance Standards: Operational Procedures § 6.6, at p. 4 & Appendix A.3, p. 14 (2005) (listing in Appendix A.3 extensive criteria considered before approval), www. nlada.org/forensics/for_lib/Documents/ 1132070952.06/RF_GN_13_NDIS_Data_ Standards2005_31_05.pdf (last visited 1/28/13); CODIS & NDIS Fact Sheet (2012) (listing Identifier as one of the most frequently used PCR kits accepted at NDIS), www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/ biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndisfact-sheet (last visited 1/28/13). These studies and the acceptance by CODIS also tend to support a finding of general acceptance, the fourth factor listed by Daubert. [See also Gov’s Ex. 10 (6/25/12), p. 2 (Identifier kit is “widely used,” which tends to show wide acceptance) ]

The Court would also find the Quantifiler Duo kit reliable, if a preliminary finding of reliability were required. The manufacturer, Applied Biosystems, performed developmental validation experiments according to SWGDAM guidelines and DNA Advisory Board Quality Assurance Standards. [Gov’s Ex. 18 & 19 (6/25/12) ] The Government asserts that internal validations were also conducted by laboratories. [Doc. No. 547, p. 38] These exhibits suggest that this kit has been sufficiently validated, reviewed and analyzed; validation suggests that the error rate is acceptable. Defendant generally claims that the quantification kit is “unreliable,” citing a study and speculating that some suggested steps to ensure accuracy might not have been followed. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 45-52] The Court finds that such challenges go to the weight of the DNA evidence, not its admissibility, and are matters which Defendant can address at trial through cross-examination or presentation of contrary evidence.

In addition, the Government states that the systems used in this case are “the industry standard for DNA testing.” [Doc. No. 547, p. 4] The existence and maintenance of standards in DNA testing, and use of kits which are “the industry standard” supports a finding of reliability; if the scientific community performing DNA analysis accepts these kits, that supports a finding by the Court that they are reliable enough for admission and assessment by the jury. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 (existence and maintenance of standards is a reliability factor); Shea, 957 F.Supp. at 338-39 (compliance with industry standards indicates reliability); Shreck, 22 P.3d at 80 (wide acceptance among scientists indicates reliability).

4. Other Procedures and Instrumentalities

The same principles discussed in the preceding sections apply to other parts of the DNA process. Challenges to the procedures or instrumentalities go to the weight of the DNA evidence, and not its admissibility — unless the challenges rise to the level of showing a major flaw that undermines or skews the PCR/STR methodology itself.

The Government states that the NMDPS Laboratory follows the FBI’s DAB QAS, conducting its own internal validations and performance checks and running negative controls at every step in the testing. [Doc. No. 547, p. 39] The Government states that the “systems and machines” used are “the industry standard *1261 for DNA testing.” [Doc. No. 547, p. 4] Compliance with standards controlling the technique’s operation, which are accepted by the scientific community performing DNA analysis, supports the conclusion that the resulting DNA evidence is rehable enough for admission and assessment by the jury. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 (factors); Shea, 957 F.Supp. at 338-39 .

The Government provided some material to show reliability of the GeneMapper ID software, Version 3.2, and the Applied Biosystems 3130 Genetic Analyzer; these exhibits show validation by the manufacturer. [Gov’s Ex. 21-22 (6/25/12) ] Government’s Exhibit 23 indicates that the 3130 Genetic Analyzer was shown to produce “rehable and reproducible results” through vahdation studies designed in accordance with SWGDAM guidelines. [Gov’s Ex. 23 (6/25/12), p. 1]

The Government states that the NMDPS Laboratory validates the use and performance of its laboratory automation feature; the Maxwell 16 Robot/Liquid Handler Operation, following' SOP. [Doc. No. 547, p. 39] Defendant refers to an external audit stating that these robotic instruments had no preventive maintenance in 2010; a memo states that since funding for service contracts was in question and the FBI QAS does not require preventative maintenance, the SOP was changed to state annual preventative maintenance as a goal rather than a requirement. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 40-41] Defendant makes no specific challenge to the operation of this robotic system, however, and the Government states that SOP requires controls and checks each time the robot is used. [Doc. No. 547, p. 39]

Capillary electrophoresis, the procedure used to analyze the amplified DNA fragments, has been found to be “generally accepted” in the scientific community, under the Frye test. Jackson, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d at 481 . A procedure meeting the more austere Frye standard necessarily meets the more liberal standards of Rule 702 and Daubert . The Utah Supreme Court observed that scientific literature appeared to be “unanimous in its approval of the general principle of identifying STRs by capillary electrophoresis,” and took judicial notice of the “inherent reliability of the instrumentation used to effectuate the PCR STR DNA testing” in that case. Butterfield, 27 P.3d at 1144-45 . Although the Court concludes that capillary electrophoresis, like each other procedure and instrumentality, need not meet the same reliability test as the methodology, the Court observes that “general acceptance” goes far toward meeting this more demanding standard.

Defendant makes some conclusory, general challenges — a number of which concern procedures and instrumentalities not used in this case. [E.g., Doe. No. 442, pp. 172-73]

The Court need not further address Defendant’s challenges to the procedures and methods used, because all of the deficiencies alleged by Defendant, even if substantiated, would go to the weight of the DNA evidence, not to its admissibility. See Beasley, 102 F.3d at 1448 . As in Beasley , Defendant’s arguments fail to show that the Laboratory’s alleged deficiencies would so alter the PCR methodology as to skew or undermine the methodology itself; therefore, these arguments would not make the DNA test results inadmissible. Id.

Even if more were required here, the Court would still find that Defendant’s challenges go to weight rather than admissibility. The NMDPS Laboratory performs validation and checking, and follows general controls and standards. The Court finds that the existence and mainte *1262 nance of standards controlling the steps in the analysis constitute a factor in favor of the reliability of the NMDPS Laboratory’s DNA analysis. Other courts have found this an important additional factor in favor of admissibility, when it is required under Daubert that reliability be demonstrated. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 ; Paoli II, 35 F.3d at 742 ; Trala, 162 F.Supp.2d at 345 .

Defendant can make these challenges at trial. To the extent that scattered suggestions of problems are contained in Defendant’s Memorandum and Reply, the Court finds that these are generally conclusory and speculative, without persuasive citation to authority. See Cahill, 610 F.3d at 1238-39 (court need not address conclusory arguments without citation to relevant authority); Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 562 F.3d at 1130 (same).

5. Contamination Controls

Defendant suggests that there may have been contamination, argues that there must be procedures to prevent and detect contamination, and generally argues that more stringent procedures could be followed and were not in this case. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 55-59, 67, 81, 151-63] Defendant does acknowledge: “The NMDPS has detailed procedures in its SOP for setting up and conducting PCR amplification and for protecting against the ever present danger of contamination.” [Doc. No. 442, p. 59] Defendant then states that it is not possible to tell whether these procedures were followed from the documentation provided and suggests that a pretrial evidentiary hearing is required to find out. [Doc. No. 442, p. 59] Defendant implies, without any supporting authority, that contamination is a greater problem with the Identifiler kit. [Doc. No. 442, p. 101] Defendant also asserts that he has demonstrated in his memorandum that “stringent contamination and other safeguards for this testing advocated by its proponents” have not been followed. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 101-02] Defendant also suggests the possibility of human error — for instance, mislabeling of samples. [Doc. No. 442, p. 67, 81]

The Government states that Davis collected and supervised collection of DNA evidence in this case, and that the NMDPS Laboratory sets standards for evidence collection and proper storage during analysis within its Quality Assurance Manual. [Doc. No. 547, p. 31 (citing Def s Ex. J6)] “The NMDPS Laboratory specifically follows the FBI’s QAS.” [Doc. No. 547, p. 33] The NMDPS Laboratory “follows a documented evidence/database sample control system to ensure the integrity of physical evidence and database samples,” including well-documented chain-of-custody tracking. [Doc. No. 547, p. 32] Measures to control contamination include lab coats, gloves, and face masks; analysts take only the amount of sample needed; laboratory access is restricted. [Doc. No. 547, pp. 32-33] In addition, “[n]egative controls are run with each test, which shows if contamination is present.” [Doc. No. 547, p. 33.] And the Government states that no “corrective actions were noted in this case,” indicating that the controls were applied and showed that there was no contamination. [Doc. No. 547, p. 33 n. 36]

The Government asserts that all of these conditions, controls, and procedures were followed in this case. [Doc. No. 547, p. 33] The Government argues that Defendant cites no support for his assertion that proper procedures were not followed. [Doc. No. 547, p. 32 n. 34] The Government also argues that any deficiencies as to controls, procedure, or chain of custody go to the weight and not the admissibility of the DNA evidence. [Doc. No. 547, p. 33]

The Ninth Circuit addressed challenges similar to Defendant’s in United States v. *1263 Hicks, 103 F.3d 837, 846 (9th Cir.1996), overruled on other grounds by United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499 (9th Cir.2008). In Hicks , the defendant challenged the reliability of the PCR DNA testing method, arguing that PCR testing is particularly susceptible to contamination. Id. The Ninth Circuit rejected the defendant’s challenges, holding that they go to the weight of DNA evidence, not its admissibility:

“Those concerns may arise with respect to any forensic evidence. The potential for contamination may present an open field for cross-examination or may be addressed through the testimony of defense experts at trial, as is true with other forensic evidence. However, it does not mean that the PCR method itself is inappropriate for forensic use. The possibility of human error does not prevent scientists from relying on scientific analysis if safeguards against such errors exist and are followed. Courts do not require that scientific tests be infallible to be admissible.”

Hicks, 103 F.3d at 846 (quoting State v. Lyons, 324 Or. 256 , 924 P.2d 802, 813 (1996)). The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its holding in Chischilly that the “ ‘impact of imperfectly conducted laboratory procedures’ is better approached ‘as an issue going not to the admissibility, but to the weight of the DNA profiling evidence.’ ” 103 F.3d at 846 (quoting Chischilly, 30 F.3d at 1154 ). Allegations of possible contamination are matters affecting the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Id.

In another case, the Eighth Circuit upheld the trial court’s ruling that challenges to the PCR method based on potential contamination go to weight and not admissibility; the Eighth Circuit held that the defendant failed to show that these alleged deficiencies “so altered the PCR methodology as to make the test results inadmissible.” Beasley, 102 F.3d at 1447-48 . The Beasley court reaffirmed the Eighth Circuit’s approach that an “ ‘allegation of failure to properly apply a scientific principle should provide the basis for exclusion of an expert opinion only if a reliable methodology was so altered ... as to skew the methodology itself.’ ” Id. at 1448 (quoting Martinez, 3 F.3d at 1198 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus even under the more restrictive approach of the Eighth Circuit, allegations of contamination do not rise to the level of precluding admission of DNA evidence.

It is important that the testing laboratory employ procedures to avoid contamination. Hicks, 103 F.3d at 846 ; see Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 (factors to consider may include existence of standards and controls); Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 149-50 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 (same). In Traía, the government showed that the laboratory protocol contained substantial controls and procedures for preventing contamination during the PCR/STR testing; since steps had been taken to prevent contamination, the Traía court held that the defendant’s “vague, broad assertion” that there could have been contamination did not warrant exclusion of the DNA evidence. Traía, 162 F.Supp.2d at 349 . Similarly, a Massachusetts court applying Daubert observed that the laboratory followed many , controls and safeguards to prevent contamination, and followed the standards of the DNA advisory board (and TWGDAM guidelines where not superseded); the court held that challenges based on the possibility of contamination went to the weight of the DNA evidence, not its admissibility. Commonwealth v. Gaynor, 443 Mass. 245 , 820 N.E.2d 233, 251 (2005).

The Court concludes that Defendant’s vague, speculative suggestions that there may have been contamination or mislabel *1264 ing are matters going to the weight of the DNA evidence, not its admissibility. The NMDPS Laboratory observes substantial controls and procedures to prevent contamination and similar problems, which is an important factor according to the case-law.

In a footnote, Defendant suggests that there may be reports of incidents of DNA contamination in the NMDPS Laboratory, which he has not received; Defendant states that he “hereby moves for disclosure of any such reports under Brady.” [Doc. No. 442, p. 83 n. 49] If this is an issue Defendant wishes to pursue, the Court advises that he should file a motion, under the appropriate procedure.

6. Chain of Custody

Defendant makes general assertions that the chain of custody is important and must be shown. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 151— 54]

The Government responds that the NMDPS Laboratory sets forth documentation of evidence and proper storage within its Quality Assurance Manual, and that the Laboratory specifically follows FBI QAS. [Doc. No. 547, pp. 31-33 (citing Defs Ex. J6) ]

The Government is correct that any deficiencies in the chain of custody go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. [Doc. No. 547, p. 33] The Tenth Circuit has observed that the “chain of custody need not be perfect for the evidence to be admissible.” United States v. Yeley-Davis, 632 F.3d 673, 683 (10th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Moore, 425 F.3d 1061, 1071 (7th Cir.2005) (considering expert testimony of forensic chemist under Daubert and holding perfect chain of custody for drugs analyzed not necessary for admissibility; gaps in chain go to weight). If the chain of custody is imperfect, deficiencies go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Yeley-Davis, 632 F.3d at 683 ; United States v. Vallie, 284 F.3d 917, 920 (8th Cir.2002). It is the role of the jury, then, to evaluate any defects in the chain of custody and to decide whether to accept or disregard the evidence. Yeley-Davis, 632 F.3d at 683

7. Mixtures and Analysis

Defendant suggests the possibility of problems with the guidelines for interpreting mixtures. [Doc. No. 442, p. 84-85]

The Government states that the NMDPS Laboratory has “conducted studies to define the limitations of the typing system and to examine the peak height ratios, and range of stutter percentages for each allele of each locus in forming its SOP.” [Doc. No. 547, p. 23] When a mixture DNA profile is detected, the NMDPS SOP requires careful examination to determine whether there are two or more individuals within the profile, and, if so, whether a major and minor contributor can be determined. [Doc. No. 547, pp. 23-24] “The testing methods or the procedure itself does not change when it is a mixed sample, rather it is the identification of alleles which allows the analyst to conclude that a sample is mixed.” [Id. p. 24] “Thus, the presence of a mixed DNA sample is a conclusion, not an input that requires a different type of testing or specialized expertise.” [Id.]

The NMDPS SOP requires that inclusions in mixtures be described conservatively, using the language “cannot be eliminated” rather than “included”; similarly, when a mixture contains a secondary standard, as in this case, the language used is “consistent with” instead of a source attribution. [Doc. No. 547, pp. 26-27] Thus, in dealing with the secondary standards from Gary and Linda Haas, because it was not *1265 possible to obtain a known standard from their cremains, Davis’s report uses the language “consistent with” in describing the relationship between the secondary standards and an evidence sample. [Doc. No. 547, p. 27]

The Government states that the NMDPS Laboratory’s SOP “discusses mixtures in some depth,” and tracks the SWGDAM recommendations for testing and interpreting mixture samples. [Doc. No. 547, p. 26] The NMDPS Laboratory follows the 2010 suggestions of the SWGDAM Mixture Committee. [Doc. No. 547, p. 26]

As the Government observes, citing studies, mixtures are routinely found and analyzed in forensic science; this is not a novel issue in DNA analysis. [Doc. No. 547, p. 24] See Whittey, 821 A.2d at 1096 . Observing that the laboratory had protocols in place to control for flaws and guidelines for interpretation when analyzing mixed samples, the district court in Traía held that challenges to analysis of mixed samples go to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility. Trala, 162 F.Supp.2d at 349 . Even under the elevated Frye standard, the court in Whittey held that issues in interpreting mixed samples affect the weight of the evidence, not the admissibility, and are matters for cross-examination. Whittey, 821 A.2d at 1096 . (As discussed previously, when a court holds that evidence is admissible um der the restrictive Frye test and an issue goes to weight only, that holding is persuasive that the evidence should be admissible under the liberal Daubert standard with the challenged issue also going to weight and not admissibility.)

The Court concludes that Defendant’s challenges go to the weight and not the admissibility of the DNA evidence — with the exception of mixtures which constitute LCN testing, as discussed in Section (D)(4)(E) below. The Court finds that it is important that the NMDPS Laboratory has standards and protocols in place and follows SWGDAM recommendations. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 ; Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 149-50 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 . The existence and maintenance of standards is a factor in favor of admissibility. See Paoli II, 35 F.3d at 742 ; Traía, 162 F.Supp.2d at 349 . In addition, the Court believes that Defendant’s challenges to the interpretation of mixed samples concern the expert’s conclusions rather than methodology, and to that extent these challenges are not bases for exclusion. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595 , . 113 S.Ct. 2786 .

Defendant also asserts that the analyst failed to follow NMDPS Laboratory SOP when she typed and interpreted evidentiary samples after the known samples from decedents and defendants. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 63-65, 41-42] The Government responds, however, that the NMDPS Laboratory follows the SWGDAM suggestion, requiring that, “to the extent possible, DNA typing results from evidentiary samples are interpreted before comparison with any known samples, other than those of assumed contributors.” [Doc. No. 547, p. 26]

Defendant asserts that there was a “biasing effect” when the analyst knew the DNA profiles of the decedents and suspects before she analyzed many of the evidence samples. [Doc. No. 442, p. 71] The Government responds that analysts often have known standards before analyzing evidence, and that the process of comparing known standards to the evidence “is a reliable method in DNA analysis.” [Doc. No. 547, p. 34 (citing Butler, Advanced Topics 2) ] The Government also states that the “actual DNA testing of the samples gathered in evidence in this case was completed before consideration of the *1266 known samples,” and that this is in accordance with SOP. [Doc. No. 547, p. 34 n. 37 (emphasis added)] This procedure would appear to counter Defendant’s assertion that the analyst “knew the DNA profiles of the decedents and suspects before” she analyzed evidence samples. The Court concludes that this issue is a subject on which Defendant can cross-examine the Government’s expert or present his own evidence; this issue goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the DNA evidence.

8. Statistics

(a) Statistics and qualitative terms

Defendant argues that DNA evidence cannot be admitted without statistical data, and also objects to testimony that Defendant is “the source” of any DNA. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 108-33, 167] Defendant also argues that statistical data “must be generally accepted within the scientific community pursuant to Frye v. United States [ 293 F. 1013 (1923) ] as accurately expressing the statistical significance of the match.” [Doc. No. 442, p. 114] Defendant again relies on the Frye test, which is inapplicable in federal court.

Defendant argues that, unless statistical calculations are included, testimony is inadmissible if it uses only qualitative terms — i.e., that a DNA profile is “consistent with” a sample, or that a person “cannot be eliminated” as a contributor to the sample; Defendant argues that these terms cannot be understood and evaluated “without statistics.” [Doc. No. 442, pp. 110-19] The Government states that the NMDPS Laboratory’s SOP establishes the language to be used regarding mixtures, and that the language used is conservative (e.g., “cannot be eliminated” rather than “included”). [Doc. No. 547, p. 26] In his Supplemental Memorandum, Defendant states that “no statistical estimates have been made with respect to many samples in this case.” [Doc. No. 442, pp. 116, 25] The Government responds that statistics have been included — in the reports or in the case notes, which were provided to Defendant (but not all of which were provided, in their entirety, to this Court); in addition, Davis amended her report to include statistics for conclusions that a sample was “consistent with” Gary Haas or Linda Haas. [Doc. No. 547, p. 25 n. 27] In addition, the Government’s Response includes statistics for source attributions made to Defendant on Items 11322A, 1132213, 11322C, and 11339A. [Doc. No. 547, p. 48] Defendant’s Reply does not reassert that random match probabilities have not been provided. It appears that there is no issue to resolve here; the parties appear to be in agreement that statistical calculations can and will be provided at trial in addition to qualitative terms.

The Government states that the NMDPS Laboratory follows the recommendations of NRC II. [Doc. No. 547, pp. 50-52] NRC II explicitly endorses use of the “product rule” to determine the probability of finding a similar match if a DNA sample were drawn randomly from the population. NRC II, at pp. 5, 122; see Whittey, 821 A.2d at 1097 (“product rule” meets restrictive Frye test; any alleged misapplication would go to weight, not admissibility under Frye). Under the product rule, the probabilities of each of the genotypes are multiplied together to obtain the random match probability. The Government states that the NMDPS Laboratory uses the FBI CODIS Popstats program, using the FBI’s Identifiler STR database and the American Indian STR database. [Doc. No. 547, p. 51] The Government related that the NMDPS Laboratory follows strict quality assurance standards, that the Lab undergoes internal and external audits for compliance with *1267 standards, is accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board, participates in proficiency tests, and follows FBI CODIS standards. [Doc. No. 547, pp. 17-20, 51-52; Doc. No. 442, p. 74 (Defendant agrees NMDPS Laboratory was accredited at time it performed analysis and wrote reports in this case) ]

The statistics are offered to help the jury evaluate the significance of the DNA evidence. The Court finds that Defendant’s challenges go to the weight of the DNA evidence, not its admissibility. First, some of these challenges are in the nature of challenges to the expert’s conclusions, and therefore not to be considered as bases for exclusion. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 (proper focus is on principles and methodology, not conclusions). Second, Defendant’s challenges are to the application of the principles, and do not approach the level of altering a reliable methodology to the extent of “skew[ing] the methodology itself’; therefore, these alleged deficiencies would go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility. Beasley, 102 F.3d at 1448 . Defendant’s arguments present issues for the jury to resolve. Third, even courts applying the heightened standard of Frye have held that challenges to statistical calculations and results go to weight, not admissibility. See, e.g., Whittey, 821 A.2d at 1097 (even misapplication of product. rule would go to weight, not admissibility); State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 327 (Mo. 1996) (criticisms of statistical methods go to weight, not admissibility); State v. Faulkner, 103 S.W.3d 346, 359-60 (Mo.Ct.App.2003) (any criticism of particular statistical methods goes to weight only, and is for jury to decide); see also Bonds, 12 F.3d at 564-65 (under Daubert, challenges to statistics and probability results go to weight, not admissibility). In addition, and alternatively, the Court finds that the Government has provided adequate information to show that its statistics are grounded in reliable principles and are admissible for that reason.

The Court finds that use of qualitative terms, along with statistics, is relevant, admissible, and will assist the jury in understanding the DNA evidence. See Fed. R.Evid. 401; Fed.R.Evid. 402; Fed. R.Evid. 702. In addition, the Court finds that the probative value of these qualitative terms, along with statistical calculations, is not substantially outweighed by any prejudicial effect. See Fed.R.Evid. 403.

(b) Source attribution

Defendant argues strenuously that the Court should preclude evidence that Defendant is the “source” or the “sole source” of DNA evidence, “to the exclusion of all other people in the world.” [Doc. No. 442, pp. 23, 119, 133] Defendant overstates the evidence the Government apparently intends to present. The laboratory reports conclude: “To a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, John McCluskey is the source of the major DNA profile resolved from these mixtures.” [Def's Ex. G6, Sept. 30, 2010 lab report (emphasis added) ] This is a significantly different opinion than in Defendant’s overstatement.

Defendant cites a number of cases involving ballistics- testimony. These cases might support Defendant’s argument if Defendant’s characterization of the expert’s testimony were not an overstatement. These cases, however, approved language generally equivalent to the language of the Government expert’s laboratory reports, and do not, therefore support Defendant’s argument in this case. Thus Defendant cites Green , but the language excluded in Green was substantially more absolute than the language of the *1268 Government’s laboratory reports in this case. See United States v. Green, 405 F.Supp.2d 104, 108-09 (D.Mass.2005) (“I will not allow him to conclude that the shell casings come from a specific pistol ‘to the exclusion of every other firearm in the world.’ ” (footnote omitted)). Similarly, the other cases cited by Defendant concerned much stronger and more absolute language. See United States v. Willock, 696 F.Supp.2d 536, 574 (D.Md.2010) (recommending disallowance of expert testimony that it is “a practical impossibility” for any other firearm to have fired the cartridges, and alternatively recommending language “more likely than not” or “to a reasonable degree of ballistic certainty”); United States v. Taylor, 663 F.Supp.2d 1170, 1179-80 (D.N.M.2009) (expert precluded from testifying to match as a matter of scientific certainty, but allowed to testify bullet came from suspect rifle “within a reasonable degree of certainty in the firearms examination field”); United States v. Glynn, 578 F.Supp.2d 567, 570-75 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (based on court’s view of limited nature of ballistics expertise, expert allowed to testify “more likely than not” to match to gun); United States v. Diaz, 2007 WL 485967 , *11 (N.D.Cal.2007) (unpublished) (expert allowed to testify “to a reasonable degree of ballistic certainty”); United States v. Monteiro, 407 F.Supp.2d 351, 372 (D.Mass.2006) (experts not allowed to testify they were 100% sure of a match, but allowed to testify “to a reasonable degree of ballistic certainty”).

The cases cited by Defendant, discussed in the preceding paragraph, support admission of the type of language related in the Government’s laboratory reports: “To a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, John McCluskey is the source of the major DNA profile resolved from these mixtures.” [Defs Ex. G6, Sept. 30, 2010 report, p. 2 (emphasis added) ]

Defendant cites a number of authorities and laboratories that reject the use of source attribution. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 121-32] Defendant submitted an affidavit from Dr. Laurence D. Mueller, Ph.D., giving his opinion that a source attribution “is not based upon sufficient facts or data and is not the product of reliable scientific principles” and is not “the consensus” of the scientific community. [Defs Ex. Y6, pp. 3, 6] Dr. Mueller, however, acknowledges that NRC II takes the opposite view. [Id. pp. 5-6] See NRC II, p. 195. Perhaps Dr. Mueller is expressing the view that under Frye — which is still followed in California — source attribution does not meet the Frye test of “general acceptance”; Dr. Mueller’s statement that this is not “the consensus” suggests that conclusion. The Court observes that, in federal court, “consensus” and “general acceptance” is not the standard. In addition, part of the basis for Dr. Mueller’s opinion is the potential for laboratory error-another issue on which Dr. Mueller disagrees with NRC II. [Defs Ex. Y6, p. 5] See NRC II, p. 87.

The Government cites authority for allowing a source attribution, stating that the FBI adopted a policy in 2000 of using source attribution. [Doc. No. 547, p. 46] The Government states that some prominent scientists approve source attribution. The Government also states that the NMDPS Laboratory follows the NRC II guidelines. [Doc. No. 547, p. 47 & n. 52, pp. 51-52] The Government states that SWGDAM guidelines allow a laboratory to use source attribution statements, provided that the laboratory has established guidelines, and that the NMDPS Laboratory has established guidelines based on NRC II and the FBI protocol — allowing a source attribution when the random match probability is 1 in 260 billion or less. [Doc. No. 547, p. 49-50] The Government states that it has provided statistical information *1269 to Defendant within the case notes; the Government’s Response lists statistical frequencies for Items 11322A, 1132213, 11322C, 11339A — ranging from 1 in 653.6 quintillion to 1 in 4.878 quintilhon. [Doc. No. 547, p. 48]

Some courts have held that a “source attribution” is admissible without presentation of the random match probability figure or other statistical calculation. A federal district court in Maryland, relying on NRC II and on an opinion from the highest state court of Maryland, held that there is no scientific basis for requiring statistics when the random match probability is “sufficiently infinitesimal” that the profile can be considered unique (absent identical twins, or maybe close relatives). United States v. Davis, 602 F.Supp.2d 658, 683 (D.Md.2009). The Davis court was persuaded by the reasoning of the Maryland state court in Young v. State, 388 Md. 99 , 879 A.2d 44, 47-48, 51-54 (2005) (applying Frye). These courts relied in .part on the change from NRC I — which stated, in 1992, that statistical testimony was necessary, to NRC II — which stated, in 1996, that scientific advances allowed comparison of genetic markers at many more loci than previously and acknowledged that it might be appropriate to allow a source attribution:

Opinion testimony about uniqueness would simplify the presentation of evidence by dispensing with specific estimates of population frequencies or probabilities. If the basis of an opinion were attacked on statistical grounds, however, or if frequency or probability estimates were admitted, this advantage would be lost. Nevertheless, because the difference between a vanishingly small probability and an opinion of uniqueness is so slight, courts that decide on a criterion for uniqueness and determine that the criterion has been met may choose to allow the latter along with, or instead of, the former, when the scientific findings support such testimony.

NRC II, p. 195 (quoted by Davis, 602 F.Supp.2d at 683 ). Both Davis and Young held that it was scientifically justifiable to testify to a match without accompanying statistics once the random match probability was as low as 1 in 300 billion. Davis, 602 F.Supp.2d at 683-84 ; Young, 879 A.2d at 53-54 .

In other cases, state courts have required that DNA evidence be accompanied by statistics indicating the significance of the match. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Mattei, 455 Mass. 840 , 920 N.E.2d 845, 854-55 (2010) (deciding on relevance grounds, applying Frye; holding statistics necessary when test could not exclude a person); Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 457 Mass. 773 , 933 N.E.2d 93 , 109 & n. 14 (2010) (deciding on relevance grounds, ap: plying Frye; observing statistics were necessary regarding DNA match).

The Court recognizes that there are differences of expert opinion on source attribution. Admissibility under Rule 702 and Daubert does not require consensus, however, and the Court could conclude that this is an issue on which expert opinion on both sides is reliable enough for admission. A “battle of experts” is for the jury to resolve. See Morrow, 374 F.Supp.2d at 63-64 ; Chischilly, 30 F.3d at 1155-56 . But the Court will take a more conservative approach.

The federal district court in Davis observed that it had “broad discretion” to ensure that evidence was presented in an effective and efficient manner. Davis, 602 F.Supp.2d at 684 . Anticipating that the defendant would vigorously cross-examine the Government’s expert on the statistical basis for her source-attribution statement, and considering the interest in time and clarity, the Davis court ordered the Gov- *1270 eminent to present the statistical basis on direct examination — even though the court held that a source attribution could be given without statistics. Id. at 684-85. The Davis court recognized that the purposes of allowing a source attribution without statistics were simplicity and efficiency, but when the defendant was expected to “aggressively challenge the Government’s expert on statistical grounds,” any such advantage would be lost. Id. at 684.

The Government has statistical calculations for its DNA evidence. And the Court believes that Defendant intends to vigorously challenge the DNA evidence and the statistical calculations underlying the expert’s opinions. As in Davis, the Court believes that the interest in clear and effective presentation of evidence to the jury will be served by having the Government present its statistical calculations in its case in chief; the Court finds that the interest in having the evidence clearly presented to the jury outweighs the Government’s interest in presenting expert conclusions without supporting statistics. The Court concludes that, when otherwise admissible, the Government will be able to present testimony that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty a person is “the source” of a DNA sample; however, the Government is ordered to also present the accompanying statistical calculations on direct examination of its expert.

Using a shotgun approach, Defendant argued that testimony giving a source attribution “is inadmissible under Rules 402, 403, and 702, as well as under Daubert and the due process, fair trial, and cruel and unusual provisions of the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution.” [Doc. No. 442, p. 109] Since Defendant fails to cite specific, persuasive authority for most of these bases, however, and the Court need not develop Defendant’s conclusory arguments or address arguments unsupported by authority, the Court declines to address most of these points. See Cahill, 610 F.3d at 1238-39 ; Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. United States EPA, 562 F.3d 1116, 1130 (10th Cir.2009). The Court observes that Defendant has overstated his argument under Rule 403, erroneously asserting that the Government intends to present expert opinion that Defendant is the “sole source,” “to the exclusion of all other people in the world.” The Court, however, finds that the evidence allowed under the procedure set forth above is admissible despite Defendant’s various objections. In particular, the Court finds that evidence of the qualitative terms along with statistical calculations is relevant and will assist the jury in understanding the DNA evidence, and that the probative value of this evidence is not substantially outweighed by any danger of: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, under Rules 401, 402, and 403. This discussion, these findings, and the procedure required by the Court apply to all of the source attributions in the laboratory reports.

(c) Laboratory error rate

Citing some authority that laboratory error rates should be considered, Defendant argues that statistical calculations are inadmissible if they do not include a measure of laboratory error. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 136-39, 91-92; Doc. No. 562, p. 4 n. 2] Defendant is not asserting that there was error in this case, but is instead arguing that the statistical calculations should take into account the potential for error based on a general error rate for all laboratories over time, or perhaps for this particular laboratory over time. The Government argues that challenges regarding laboratory error rates go to the weight of *1271 DNA evidence, not its admissibility. [Doc. No. 547, p. 40]

Defendant recognizes that NRC II recommends that laboratory error rates not be combined with match probabilities, but asserts that this recommendation should not be followed. [Doc. No. 442, p. 138] Defendant quotes the 2009 report of the National Research Council, NRC (2009), p. 121. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 139, 92; Doc. No. 562, p. 4 n. 2] Although this quotation recognizes that it would be good to explore and determine error rates, it stops short of recommending that they be included in statistical calculations — as Defendant argues — and does not suggest determination of laboratory error rate as a prerequisite to admissibility.

Defendant also cites a Mississippi ease, Watts v. State, 733 So.2d 214, 224 (Miss. 1999). [Doc. No. 442, p. 139] Defendant states that Watts “declared,” as suggested by one of the experts cited by Defendant, Dr. Jonathan Koehler, that “ ‘the introduction of statistical evidence can be meaningless without any evidence of the testing laboratory’s error rate.” [Doc. No. 442, p. 139 (quoting Watts, 733 So.2d at 224 ) ] The Watts case does not aid Defendant. In the portion of the Watts opinion cited by Defendant, the Mississippi court upheld admission of DNA evidence (regarding the undershorts) without either statistical evidence or evidence of the laboratory error rates; in addition, the Watts court held that both statistical calculations and laboratory error rates go to the credibility of DNA matching evidence — not to its admissibility. Watts, 733 So.2d at 224 . In the next section of the opinion, the Watts court affirmed admission of DNA evidence (regarding the jacket) with statistical evidence, but apparently without evidence on laboratory error. The Watts case supports the Government’s position that laboratory error rate is not required and goes only to weight of the evidence, not admissibility.

As Defendant recognizes, the National Research Council recommended in 1996 that laboratory error rates not be included in random match probabilities:

[W]e believe that a calculation that combines error rates with match probabilities is inappropriate. The risk of error is properly considered case by case, taking into account the record of the laboratory performing the tests, the extent of redundancy, and the overall quality of the results.

NRC II, p. 87. “The courts have almost uniformly followed the recommendation of the National Research Council.” State v. Tester, 185 Vt. 241 , 968 A.2d 895, 906 (2009); accord Roberts v. United States, 916 A.2d 922, 930 (D.C.2007). Relying on the scientific consensus reflected in NRC II, courts refuse to exclude DNA evidence on the ground that the laboratory did not calculate and include an error rate in the random match probability. See, e.g., Beasley, 102 F.3d at 1448 ; Hicks, 103 F.3d at 846 ; Chischilly, 30 F.3d at 1153 ; Trala, 162 F.Supp.2d at 350 ; Shea, 957 F.Supp. at 340 ; Roberts v. United States, 916 A.2d 922, 930-31 (D.C.2007) (applying Frye test). The Vermont court in Tester also adopted the recommendation of NRC II and held that the laboratory error rate, to the extent it could be known, goes to the weight of the DNA evidence, not its admissibility. Tester, 968 A.2d at 906 .

“NRC II was deeply skeptical that a ‘general error rate’ based on the performance of different laboratories operating at different times ... would be reliable or meaningful.” Roberts, 916 A.2d at 931 . According to NRC II, the way to address the possibility of laboratory error is through re-testing; the quotation above continues: “However, there is no need to debate differing estimates of false-match *1272 error rates when the question of a possible false match can be put to direct test, as discussed in the next section.” NRC II, p. 87; see Tester, 968 A.2d at 906 .

The Court notes that Defendant makes a speculative suggestion that he may not have been able to re-test some samples, which may have been consumed in testing, which may have been contrary to QAS. [Doc. No. 442, p. 38] The Government states that: evidence “has been available since August 2010 for Defendant to view, examine, or re-test”; “[a]t no point has Defendant requested any re-testing”; and “the DNA extract is retained and available to re-test.” [Doc. No. 547, p. 33 n. 35] The Court notes that Defendant does not assert that he made any request or attempt to re-test samples, that it has not been established as a factual matter that he could not have re-tested samples, and also that the QAS Defendant cites are not violated if it was not “possible” or “feasible” to retain portions of samples for re-testing. [Doc. No. 442, p. 38 & n. 15] No issue here is presented or ripe for decision.

Thus courts hold that challenges based on laboratory error rate go to the weight of the DNA evidence, not its admissibility. Beasley, 102 F.3d at 1448 ; Hicks, 103 F.3d at 846 ; Tester, 968 A.2d at 906 . As the Morrow court explained:

Defendant’s argument on this score exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of Daubert. The Court’s concern under Rule 702 and Daubert is the reliability of the scientific methodology at issue, not the reliability of the laboratory performing the test. Put simply, “[a] laboratory’s error rate is a measure of its past proficiency and is of little value in determining whether a test has methodological flaws.” Shea, 957 F.Supp. at 340 . What the defendant has sought to do here is challenge the proficiency of the tester rather than the reliability of the test. Such challenges go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Morrow, 374 F.Supp.2d at 67 .

In addition to the possibility of re-testing the DNA sample, the adversary system provides effective means for Defendant to challenge the Government’s DNA evidence on the basis of laboratory error. Defendant is free to cross-examine the lab analyst. See Hicks, 103 F.3d at 846 (observing also that concerns about lab error arise with respect to any forensic evidence); Tester, 968 A.2d at 906 ; Roberts, 916 A.2d at 931 . Further, the Court takes note of the Government’s statement that the NMDPS Laboratory has quality control measures in place at every step in the testing process to ensure that samples are not contaminated or mishandled, along with corrective actions for any errors detected. [Doc. No. 547, p. 41] These attempts to control for laboratory errors provide additional reason to reject Defendant’s argument. See Trala, 162 F.Supp.2d at 350 .

Considering the recommendation of the NRC II report, and the great weight of authority in the caselaw, the Court concludes that a “general error rate” is not a prerequisite to admissibility of the Government’s random match probability statistics. Challenges based on laboratory error rates go to the weight of the DNA evidence, not its admissibility.

Defendant also argues that presentation of random match probabilities without including an estimate of laboratory error rate would be “more misleading than probative under Rule 403.” [Doc. No. 442, p. 140] In view of the NRC II recommendation, and the explanation quoted above from the Morrow court, the Court does not find that the probative value of statistical calculations that do not include a laboratory error rate would be substantially out *1273 weighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The Morrow court convincingly argues that laboratory error rate “is of little value in determining whether a test has methodological flaws” — i.e., the weight and reliability of the DNA test. Morrow, 374 F.Supp.2d at 67 . As the Morrow court explains, what Defendant really seeks to do via laboratory error rate is to “challenge the proficiency of the tester rather than the reliability of the test.” Id. Defendant will have the opportunity to cross-examine “the tester” at trial. There will not be “unfair prejudice” because information on laboratory error rates can properly be placed before the jury through the adversary system. The Court concludes that absence of a laboratory error rate does not violate Rule 403.

(d) Weak statistical significance

Defendant argues that the frequencies for probability of inclusion on three samples are of such weak significance that the DNA evidence should be excluded. [Doc. No. 442, pp. 118, 135-36] Defendant cites authority for his argument only under Rule 403. Defendant, in shotgun style, lists as additional bases for exclusion: Rule 402, Rule 702, Daubert, and “the Due Process, Fair Trial, and Cruel and Unusual Provisions of the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution”; this listing appears only in the heading of Defendant’s pleading. This Court need not address conclusory arguments for which no authority is provided. See Ca-hill, 610 F.3d at 1238-39 ; Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 562 F.3d at 1130 .

For some populations, the laboratory reports show relatively high probabilities of inclusion for the Caucasian population: 1B22D — 1 in 12 (swab of Smith & Wesson handgun; Sept. 30, 2010 report, p. 3); 1B72B — 1 in 9268 (swab of Smith & Wesson handgun; Dec. 22, 2010 report, p. 4); and 31 e — 1 in 21 (swab of passenger side front door of Haas pickup; Dec. 22, 2010 report, p. 5). [Defs Ex. G6, l

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.