Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): no margin for error — all flawed assumptions, see discussion infra part one, section IV), 15% of African Americans share those markers. 24 In fact, Cellmark did not stand by the technique with any sort of validation study and Dr. Word, the State's own expert, testified pretrial that the technique is only "sometimes possible" even when there are only two contributors to the mixture and is impossible when there are more than two contributors. She neglected to mention in what circumstances such analysis is possible. See discussion supra at 161-163, 699 A.2d at 617. 25 Additionally, this error might have prevented the penalty-phase jury's formation of "residual doubt" and thus influenced the death sentence meted out. See State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 172, 690 A.2d 1 (1997) {Marshall III) (<HOLDING>); State v. Harris, 141 N.J. 525, 580, 662 A.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing concept of joint employer when separate entities share or eodetermine conditions of employment (B) recognizing in union democracy context potential adverse impact of requiring candidates to qualify long before election (C) recognizing impact of child support guidelines (D) recognizing concept of residual doubt and its potential impact on penaltyphase delibera tions (E) recognizing cause of action under section 504 based on claims of disparate impact
Output (English): recognizing cause of action under section 504 based on claims of disparate impact