Opinion ID: 2044218
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Frequency Calculations

Text: Defendant argues that the frequency calculations done in this case are scientifically unreliable for two reasons: 1) because the State did not use confidence intervals [5] when presenting the frequency calculations to the jury and 2) because one of the Polymarker sites checked is in linkage disequilibrium with other of the Polymarker sites. We disagree. First, the State's failure to offer the confidence intervals to the jury has no bearing on the initial reliability determination. Second, the State presented sufficient evidence to establish that the results were not skewed by linkage disequilibrium. Linkage disequilibrium and the unreliable frequency calculations that flow therefrom occur when dependent frequency markers are multiplied together. [6] In this case, no linkage disequilibrium can be found. The State's expert properly applied the Product Rule by multiplying two independent frequency markers to obtain the frequency calculations. [7] Even still, defendant's attacks go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. See Jenkins v. State, 627 N.E.2d 789, 794 (Ind.1993). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence.