determinations are not proper for the court to make here for the whole reason that, you know,

studies supporting this, supporting this science, studies opposing this science, testimony from this

expert or that expert about what is reliable, what is not, what's more reliable, what's less

reliable, factors that affect all those determinations, Those are all very, very complex decisions.

There will be probably multiple day hearings dealing with that. And a probable cause determination is just

not the place to conduct that kind of thorough, in-depth and searching analysis.

Rather, the case law, the Constitution of Utah that says the only purpose of a preliminary hearing is determined probable cause, the case law, the rules that all say the court does not weigh the evidence at this stage, but leaves that for a finder of fact, the jury in the end.

That all supports cutting this line of questioning off at this point rather than going on for

into greater depth, Your Honor.

All right.

Well, based off what's been presented before me, I'm going to sustain in part and deny in part the objection made.

I'm going to allow this question to be asked, and so that is denying, but sustain in the

sense that this would be the last question, and if Mr. Bert would choose us to, may go on to a different

subject or a different line of questioning.

Sure.

Did that in this report conclude that it remains unclear if visual inspection renders consistent

number of contributor estimations across analysts over time?

Can you repeat that? Yeah.

Did the report, the NIST report that you referenced, conclude that it remains unclear

if visual inspection renders consistent number of contributor estimations across analysts over time? I think that goes to the DNA evidence.

Again, we never truly know the number of contributors in a forensic sample.

So like I mentioned before, you could have DNA mixtures that are made up of two, three, four individuals.

...