Can a turnstile post from a crime scene be used to prove the identity of the killer?

Defendant relies primarily upon Mikes v. Borg (9th Cir. 1991) 947 F.2d 353, 356-359, in which the court found fingerprints recovered from a turnstile post found at a murder scene were insufficient by themselves to prove the identity of the killer, since there was no evidence to show that the fingerprints were left on the post at the time of the murder. Indeed, the court emphasized that the turnstile posts were of a type commonly used in public places such as grocery stores, and could have been touched by the defendant as a member of the public long before the murder occurred. (Id. at pp. 358-359.) The situation in the instant case is quite different. In the instant case the inside window ledge, the wall over the sink, and the area near the sink, were not accessible to defendant as a member of the public, and had not previously been located in an area where defendant had access to them. The burglary of the Kimble residence did not involve a movable item such as a turnstile post, but rather involved the inside portion of the burglarized house at the exact point of entry. Further, the pattern of prints indicated that defendant touched the window ledge, the wall over the sink, and the area near the sink, which was exactly where fingerprints would be expected if defendant had crawled through the window over the sink, and then crawled onto the counter near the sink as he entered. This case is distinguishable from Mikes and does not suffer from the problems involved in that case. Here, the evidence was sufficient to show that the fingerprints were left at the time of entry through the window and was therefore sufficient to show that defendant burglarized the Kimble residence as charged in count 1.