Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to resolve identification issues sufficiently supported the reliability of his application to the facts in this case, and his express observations and reasoning on the record reinforce this conclusion. Interestingly enough, the reliability of Detective Caffey’s methodology finds further support in the fact that Pierce’s own expert, Taylor-Austin, relied on similar experience-based credentials and the same gang-membership identifiers in assessing the conduct of the Appellants. Indeed, Taylor-Austin confirmed that clothing in a specific color, Philadelphia Phillies memo rabilia, and terminology such as “Pira” were factors suggestive of Blood gang membership, and reached a conclusion regarding the evidence in this case based, in part, on these facts. See id. at 151, 119 S.Ct. at 1176 (<HOLDING>). The only cognizable difference between the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that expert testimony may be admissible even if not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community provided that it qualifies in some other way as reliable under federal rule of evidence 702 (B) holding that product rule method of dna statistical evidence is now generally accepted in the relevant scientific community (C) recognizing that it may be appropriate to ask an expert relying on experience whether his preparation is of a kind that others in the field would recognize as acceptable and whether his  method is generally accepted in the relevant  community (D) holding that whether the witnesss area of expertise was technical scientific or more generally experiencebased the court in its gatekeeping function must make certain that an expert whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field (E) recognizing that an expert may rely on an article because it is the expert who determines based on study and experience whether the article is reliable
Output (English): holding that whether the witnesss area of expertise was technical scientific or more generally experiencebased the court in its gatekeeping function must make certain that an expert whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field