Just FYI. There is no “the” evidence technician when it comes to a forensic expert. Sure, there is the prosecutor’s technician. But the defense’s technician can come the exact opposite conclusion on the same evidence. The two bite mark experts at my sister’s murder trial are a good case and point. The prosecutor’s argument was that because a (poorly defined) bite mark on the victim could not have come from three certain men, it had to have come from Cheri Dale. Whereas the defense’s expert said under oath “almost anybody could have left that kind of a bite bruise”.
But forget the notion that each case has only one technician. That’s not so, and such a claim gives the false sense of being final and conclusive.
The sentence should read: “…a pawnshop slip marked with the findings of AN evidence technician”