With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (finding interim ceiling principle to be admissible, but remanding for additional hearings); Brim, supra, 695 So.2d at 273 (finding ceiling principle, but not unmodified product rule, potentially to be admissible pending a hearing); Caldwell v. State, 260 Ga. 278, 393 S.E.2d 436, 443-44 (1990) (finding unmodified product rule in admissible based on evidence of departure from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mass. 154, 596 N.E.2d 311, 314-16 (1992) (finding product-rule estimates by Cell mark to be in admissible; noting in dicta agreement with ceiling principles); Commonwealth v. Curnin, 409 Mass. 218, 565 N.E.2d 440 (1991) (rejecting Cellmark’s probability analysis as not being generally accepted at that time); State v. Bloom, 516 N.W.2d 159 (Minn.1994) (<HOLDING>); Carter, supra, 524 N.W.2d at 776-83 (ruling

A: recognizing principle but finding evidence at first trial sufficient
B: recognizing principle
C: recognizing this principle as a settled rule
D: recognizing problems with unmodified product rule and finding productrule calculation modified by ceiling principle to be admissible
D.