Ok folks, here's the dilemma. We are getting ready on a capital case involving a murder from back in 1980. We have our defendant's print lifted from a clock from the victim's bedroom (and found right next to her body). However, our crime scene tech who lifted that print is dead. The print card itself has the print/case number/etc, as well as a label on the back of the card that says "alarm clock" identifying where it was lifted in the home.

We will have testimony from another crime scene tech who was on scene who can say only that he remembers items throughout the home being printed, but not that he remembers this clock being printed specifically. We also have a video from the crime scene in which you can see the clock with dust on it (showing it clearly was printed at some point).

The reason this is important is that the defendant was the victim's pest control man, so his prints were likely properly in other parts of the home. This clock was found next to her body, so it definitely helps our case if we can put it on that clock.

A new case came out on Monday (8-11-14) (unpublished court of appeals case) that said that the state was not required to have the nurse in a blood draw testify in order to get the blood into evidence. I assume that an officer was able to testify and identify the vial. The court said that the nurse's unavailability (she was having a baby) did not pose a Crawford problem because the vial itself wasn't testimonial.

However, here, my concern is that the print itself could be treated as the vial was in the blood draw, but that the labeling on the back of the print card (which is critical), WOULD in fact be testimonial in this case, and the guy is dead.

We feel like surely someone has dealt with this before. Ideas? Help? Thank you in advance!