nuanced analysis. See Summers, 666 F.3d at 202 (“[T]he report invited the jurors’ attention to the data’s numerical identifiers. Admission of the report presented, an unnecessary risk that the jury would improperly evaluate the DNA evidence based on its lay perceptions of what the data meant rather than on [the witness’s] expertise and any potential inaccuracies in his conclusions that might be developed on cross-examination”). The allele table articulated by numerical identifiers the DNA profiles of defendant and decedent, as well as that of the bloodstains found on evidence seized from the scene of the crime. These “statements” clearly constituted solemn declarations made for the primary purpose of establishing facts relevant to a criminal prosecution. Bullcoming, 131 S.Ct. at 2716 (<HOLDING>). The DNA testing was performed to aid the
holding that statements were testimonial in nature because they were incontrovertibly    affirmations made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact in a criminal proceeding quoting melendezdiaz 129 sct at 2532 holding inculpatory forensic lab certificates testimonial but noting that blusiness and public records are generally admissible absent confrontation  becausehaving been created for the administration of an entitys affairs and not for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trialthey are not testimonial holding that the litigation privilege did not preclude a malicious prosecution claim where the accusatorial statements that led to the plaintiffs arrest were made before the charges against him were filed and were not made during and were unrelated to the judicial proceeding holding that parts of the adult sexual assault victims statement to emergency room personnel that described the nature of the alleged attack and the cause of her symptoms and pain were not testimonial because they fell into the category of statements made by a patient with a selfish interest in treatment and were not accusatory in nature internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that although the victims initial statements were nontestimonial the victims later statements to the police and her neighbor were testimonial because the primary purpose of the questioning was investigatory there was no indication of a continuing danger and the statements recounted how the potentially criminal past events began and progressed