Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the factual dispute at trial. Whether otherwise reliable testing procedures were performed without error in a particular case goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Only if a party challenges the performance of a reliable and relevant technique and shows that the performance was so particularly and critically deficient that it undermined the reliability of the technique, will evidence that is otherwise reliable and relevant be deemed inadmissible. “Of course, once a particular theory or technique has satisfied § 36-18-30, a court may take judicial notice of that theory or technique’s reliability. See Perry, 586 So.2d at 251; [United States v.] Beasley, 102 F.3d [1440] at 1448 [(8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1246, 117 S.Ct. 1856, 137 L.Ed.2d 1058 (1997)] (<HOLDING>); [United States v.] Martinez, 3 F.3d [1191] at 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that pleadings in the underlying case are subject to judicial notice by an appellate court (B) holding that another courts decision is a proper subject of judicial notice (C) holding that reliability of the polymerase chain reaction pcr method of dna typing would be subject to judicial notice in future cases (D) holding pcr motions alleging an illegal sentence are not subject to the timebar (E) holding that the reliability of the restriction fragment length polymorphism rflp procedure was subject to judicial notice
Output (English): holding that another courts decision is a proper subject of judicial notice