2003); People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68, 83 (Colo. 2001); State v. Butterfield, 27 P.3d 1133, 1143 (Utah 2001); State v. Jackson, 582 N.W.2d 317, 325 (Neb. 1998); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 685 N.E.2d 739, 743 (Mass. 1997); Overstreet v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1140 (Ind.App. Feb. 24, 2003); State v. Salmon, 89 S.W.3d 540 (Mo.App. 2002); Lemour v. State, 802 So.2d 402, 408 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2001); State v. Rokita, 736 N.E.2d 205, 211 (Ill.App. 2000); People v. Allen, 72 Cal.App.4th 1093, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 655, 658-660 (1999); State v. Deloatch, 354 N.J. Super. 76 (Law Div. 2002); People v. Owens, 725 N.Y.S.2d 178, 180-81 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 2001). In addition, the Government has submitted significant evidence indicating that the PCR/STR typing process, specifically with regard to the thirteen STR loci at issue here, has been substantially peer-reviewed and has gained acceptance in the forensic community.
2001); Lemourv. State , 802 So.2d 402, 408 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2001); State v. Rokita , 736 N.E.2d 205, 211 (Ill.App.Ct. 2000); Commonwealth v. Rosier , 685 N.E.2d 739, 743 (Mass. 1997); State v. Jackson , 582 N.W.2d 317, 325 (Neb. 1998); People v. Owens , 725 N.Y.S.2d 178, 180-81 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 2001); State v. Butterfield , 27 P.3d 1133, 1143 (Utah 2001). Therefore, this court holds that the PCR STR technique is generally accepted in the scientific community.
People v. Brown, 110 Cal.Rptr. 750, 762 (Cal.Ct.App. 2001); People v. Hill, 107 Cal.Rptr. 110, 119 (Cal.Ct.App. 2001); People v. Allen, 85 Cal.Rptr. 655, 660 (Cal.Ct.App. 1999); Lemour v. State, 802 So.2d 402, 405 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2001). Two exceptionally thorough published trial court opinions have reached this conclusion as well. United States v. Trala, 162 F. Sup. 336 (D. Del. 2001) (using Daubert); People v. Owens, 725 N.Y.S.2d 178 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 2001) (using Frye). Widespread appellate endorsement of a scientific technique should ordinarily end the need for case-by-case adjudication in the trial courts.