In People v. Wilson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1237, the prosecution presented evidence of the odds of a similar DNA match with respect to the three most common population groups in the United States -- Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic -- despite the fact there was no evidence of the race or ethnicity of the perpetrator aside from evidence the defendant was the perpetrator. (Id. at p. 1240.) The court rejected the notion that, absent independent evidence of the population group to which the perpetrator belonged, any evidence regarding any particular group was irrelevant and, hence, inadmissible. (Id. at pp. 1244-1245.) The court approved the following statement: "'In order to determine the significance of the match between defendant's DNA and the crime scene DNA, it is necessary -- and relevant -- to establish the likelihood that the crime scene DNA came from another person. There is agreement within the scientific community that genetic frequencies differ for different racial or ethnic populations, and that frequency data would be less accurate without such differentiation. By presenting the data for the major racial components of the population, when there is no independent evidence of the perpetrator's race, the prosecution presents the data necessary for the jury to evaluate the likelihood that the crime scene DNA came from someone other than the defendant.'" (Id. at p. 1247.) The court also agreed that, "'as the science underlying DNA comparisons continues to improve, the practical significance of the different racial frequencies diminishes.'" (Id. at p. 1248.) The court found that while presenting the jury with only the most conservative frequency, without mention of ethnicity, or presenting the frequency in the general, nonethnic population "may be acceptable choices in an appropriate case, if such evidence exists," there was "no reason to require one of those alternatives instead of giving the jury a range of possible frequencies." (Id. at p. 1249.) The court further rejected the notion that the evidence before it was improperly admitted because frequency ranges were given only for the three most common population groups, rather than all possible groups to which the perpetrator could have belonged. (People v. Wilson, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 1249-1250.) The court stated: "Although giving results for all possible population groups would be permissible, doing so is not required to give relevance to the range of possibilities. Furthermore, it is not clear whether it is realistically feasible to include all population groups.... In this case, [the criminalist] provided information regarding the three most numerous population groups. This made her testimony relevant and admissible." (Id. at p. 1250.)