Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): resolution of Appellant’s claims of deficient stewardship—evaluated in Pennsylvania according to the three-prong inquiry into arguable merit, reasonable strategy, and prejudice—are well developed in the decisional law. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Jones, 572 Pa. 343, 364-65 & n. 14, 815 A.2d 598, 611 & n. 14 (2002). The cases also discuss the overlap between federal constitutional law and Pennsylvania practice in such regard. See id. 16 . While not confronting the matter squarely in its opinion, the PCRA court accepted as a fact, during the post-conviction hearings, that trial counsel did not review Ms. Halverson’s or Mr. Basten's reports with a defense expert. See, e.g., N.T., Aug. 10, 2009, at 158-60. 17 . See generally State v. Russell, 125 Wash.2d 24, 882 P.2d 747, 759-68 (1994) (<HOLDING>). 18 . Accord David L. Faigman, Jeremy A. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that calculations done by applying product rule were generally accepted in relevant scientific community (B) holding that product rule method of dna statistical evidence is now generally accepted in the relevant scientific community (C) holding that expert opinion based on scientific technique is inadmissible unless technique is generally accepted as reliable in relevant scientific community (D) recognizing that dna identification of humans is generally accepted by the scientific community and is based on knowledge about the extent of genetic variation in humans identification of discrete variable polymorphic dna loci and accurate probability estimates all of which were developed through years of extensive research and validation by the scientific community (E) recognizing universal acceptance in the scientific community of the principles and techniques on which dna typing and pcr replication are based
Output (English): holding that calculations done by applying product rule were generally accepted in relevant scientific community