Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 803 So.2d 598, 605-07 (Fla.2001); Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So.2d 495, 511 (Fla.2005) (citing Escobar for the proposition that “police misrepresentations alone do not necessarily render a confession involuntary,” but rendering this holding in the context of a case in which the police investigator misrepresented the extent of the inculpatory evidence in the case he was actually investigating)-, Davis v. State, 859 So.2d 465, 472 (Fla.2003) (confession voluntary despite law enforcement’s characterization of the situation confronting the defendant as a “missing-person ease”; the detectives accurately informed the defendant of the identity of the missing person and simply neglected to inform him that they already knew the victim was dead); Nelson v. State, 850 So.2d 514, 521-22 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>). In short, the common theme linking each of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the erroneous admission of dna evidence is never harmless (B) recognizing that in prior decisions the court had used the term inconclusive to mean that dna evidence did not exclude an individual but clarifying that in the future the term inconclusive would be used only when a dna sample does not contain enough dna to draw a conclusion dna is degraded or for other reasons a dna test yields no results or the examiner draws no conclusion (C) holding recording of eyewitnesss inculpatory statement made in custodial interrogation testimonial in nature (D) holding confession voluntary despite police misrepresentation of the thenunknown inculpatory nature of the applicable dna evidence (E) holding that there was no ineffective assistance for failing to hire a dna expert because the defenses theory was that the defendants dna was planted so the dna evidence would not seem to be an issue
Output (English): holding that the erroneous admission of dna evidence is never harmless