circuit our first case for today it is two thousand and seventeen three zero nine five zero united states versus paul joseph iowa and they there's nothing there to tell us what it is and more importantly distinguishing brust continued from this case is he never went to a jury trial his attorney filed a motion to dismiss which was denied and then he entered a conditional plea ruhle and took up the denial of the motion to dismiss so a we don't know what his evidence was and b it never went to a jury now the evidence that we were not allowed to pursue was was attorney general of the united states or the f b i or someone of that nature that's the problem that is a problem we don't have such a letter and no such letters are issued to my knowledge ever to anyone i mean the problem is under our precedent aren't you stuck if it's a state official and not a federal official so if that is the mistake of law problem and i would look at barker which says there are exceptions to the state to to the mistake of law but i understand where you're going judge and that's what the that's what the cases say but in this one i mean when you look at everything about these cases is some state court you know it's policies and procedures testimony and that the jury did not get to hear that even if the jury had heard it the problem is as the law exists now the jury couldn't have appropriately relied upon this as it's a mistake with regard to it because it's not a legitimate basis because it has to be about the ignorance of the law is no defense basically  will the jury probably would have notified the verdict i mean let's be real here in that what you wanted and that's and but unfortunately the judge can't let that in if it's not appropriate ev and i understand your client probably feels that that these been very mistreated and you feel that way on his behalf but in the jury may have notified the verdict but that's not a legitimate reason to let in evidence is the question new letter because this is causing all kinds of problems i'm just not sure what else mr violet could have but i do have a question for you matt did you raise that this is not a predicate conviction  because it's not it's no longer a conviction and there was no express provision that you can't possess or carry as the nine twenty two requires did you raise that this actually is not a valid credited to yes because what you did raise that with judge minority but did you raise that any point so that we could consider that issue i really thought was going to be on probation in light of all of the circumstances one of rich's you know most convicted felon in possession of harm of a persons are committing some of the new crime and they paul was hunting and i know that's not relevant to the issues by an official charge with interpretation of ministration and or unfortunately for responsibilities in the relevant legal field well the relevant legal field was the state connection and the person who gave them the the ok to do doctrine which is not perfectly fit for this but you know when something is crossed to the state court and then the federal court comes in a prosecution for the exact same thing that's not double jeopardy it might be now we get it we'll get a decision in a few here but in order for you to weigh in on your barker argument we're not the right pane all for that either are we we have to go on bob i probably would you know because we can't we can't ignore we have a rule may please the court course though it's united states district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the defendants first offender pardoned letters are the testimonies from state and local officials ammunition that was seized from the search that's in possession after he's been informed by the game official wait a minute and you can't have firearms and then in january twenty sixteen well over a month after he's been informed by state officials well actually you can have a firearm he's found a loaded clip for a for a rifle and just say this is what requires going to the side of the record and used in this case  only a few days after that search warrant on mr vidal was home a second search warrant was executed and he can't trailer in the middle district that mr vial of frequent where they found another cache and guns five or six i believe right is this is a mistake of law and and you know i think federal law is clear that a defense misunderstanding about the significance of this previous conviction that makes him or him the person or his misunderstanding that you know  developed a second case you out of the case in the middle district that's sort of what was executed on december seventh twenty fifteen so that's right right when this case is you know the search warrant for mr baez home was solely provide and i'm not saying that in the way that karen says well we don't really care about that we're going to have a broad prohibition but in the just carrying a concealed weapon but that's he did not get an express notice of that as the statute requires did he wrong on or it's not just the the concealed carry prohibition there is a blanket prohibition on the louisiana state law see i still have the answer to my question of how you get there just tell us that that's a misstatement of state law can you please tell me what walk me through can you walk us through the state law that you say that that makes says somewhere in it's either through its case law or through its statutes that the ten year prohibition applies to people who have been fully restored of their rights where does it say that for unfortunately i can't you don't know today is that the answer you don't know but that's what you think the left that's what i believe it is yes ok thanks you are good and you know regardless of the tenure i teach me the concealed carry explicit but i do think it would be a tougher question because you would be sort of mirroring the state's rights with federal rights as far as what the scope of the prohibition is so mr baez prosecution of law and caring was decided before heller before all of these important cases reminded us of the scope of the second amendment and so i'm just but you so you would lose if my brief i told the judge well if you're not going to let the letters now then i don't think you should give this jury charge and so actually my quote is with the understanding that had my numerous objections to not getting those letters and about the pardon had those come in i would have asked at the paragraph that this paragraph come in and the judge said you preserve your objection and i put i was in a quandary so if we get this instruction but the jury doesn't see the letters then the jurors going to say you think did not would would cut your client's favor a base like that you think would would in north your clients benefit because there is no express statement in this case right so whether that's enough to remanded in these circumstances the judge should give him a straight wall instruction i should be allowed to call my two witnesses and put on my evidence let the government cross examine them as long as they want let the judge