has filed his appeal because he honestly believes he didn't get a fair trial he reaffirms his story that he was forced into the apartment by the puerto rico police who planted his pistol who took it from where its location in his car and put it up stairs in the apartment in order to link him to the drug dealing that was going on in the apartment the reason for doing that is that testified that is the appellant testified to all of these facts at a suppression hearing that was held in this case and so the government was aware that the defendant had testified that he had actual possession of the pistol in his car just not position the apartment but because of the evidence that they had when the evidence that he didn't have the chose to prosecute him for  present that testimony at trial as i will explain further on the government the and took the the evidence of a prior conviction and asked to have it admitted under moral for v for two reasons to have the prior conviction admitted but also to prejudice the jury with the prior conviction as to the defendant's veracity so at that point it was a practical certainty that he could not testify and be believed were four police officers available to testify against him in addition so what did the what the government say was the special relevance of the fire conviction it's a very good question they argued intent and he argued in general in very general way the argued a logical connection between prior conviction and this conviction for knowledge  tell might make sense if he was in some way denying that it was says or that he knew it was there but he never denied it is that correct that's correct that's part of the that's part of the reason why it's only marginally relevant he when you say he didn't contest whether it was his i understand what he said in the suppression hearing but that wasn't to the jury that's true so there was no stipulation that it was his no and so how in what sense wasn't he contesting that it was his in other words he wasn't conceding in the government was put to the proof they had to prove it was his gun he was it would have it would have provided a fair trial if there had been a stipulation i believe well that the government i have no knowledge whether there was any discussion about it certainly not ok so for our purposes we assume there is no stipulation and that doesn't that's fine which means he was contesting whether it was his gun well it may be that you see it was that the court wound the evidence in for to show for things what the defendant knew when a firearm was and i find that really disingenuous everyone knows what a firearm is what its purposes how functions more general terms everybody sees them on television they know about forty percent of the population in the united states owns one so it's highly unlikely that there's any more any more relevance admitting a prior conviction to show that he knew they knew what a farm was not thought the government argued that they were admitting it to show it was the same gun as as a that the government was admitting that the show was the same gun as the bird conviction well it started out that the government said it's very similar we can't really say it's the same gun but then on the th day of trial on the morning of the trial the government for the st time unveiled their series and it was the same gun and i argued to the judge before the judge made a final ruling on admitting the evidence so what's your response to that the response is we don't know it was the same gun you're right the government's found that it was the same gun it was the accusation this said the guy that he's accused of having was military green and black we don't know what military green and black is as we are not in the  not red so why isn't there a reasonable inference that it was the same gun isn't that isn't that enough evidence it's not it's not reasonable when you consider the number of green and black guns that are manual that are mass produced or mass produced by more than twelve defendant your client had agreed i'm glad guns are two different occasions he has an accusation of that and he was convicted of possession of a firearm in the st case relative within the same year he's you've got him with a gun that looks similar to the gun they're now saying he also had and if i understand it the gun he was convicted of having before was never found that right that's correct but ballistic tests were done on the gun by the government's expert state expert for the state case purposes and it was not shown to be the same gun and matter of fact expert found that not to my knowledge gun was his but he had never but if he did not take it into the apartment that's that's a critical piece of your argument as to why this prior conviction basically had been admitted  out of command and yet you don't you're not able to tell us how that siri of the case got to the jury no that's correct i can't tell you that point out that the same gun series that the prosecution raise i just asked you why you didn't ask for that part of the record if it's a critical part of your argument for your client i had no idea at the time submitted and i just at that point didn't focus on it you have anything further i would like to rest on your brief i think i think very much so much was not about the government showing could you just just is it part of the record on appeal one of the jury was or was not aware of his position that it was his gun and  we look at the appendix the defense counsel's opening statement kept he kept the defense's theory of the case very close to his chest and simply told the jury that  these cross examinations for example of agent but as he asked him for example he would point out that there were other people and he in the apartment as all of these questions your honor were directed at showing that he was somehow not related to that apartment and therefore not in control did mean apartment or the things inside the apartment one of those being the firearm so what did he ask issue if i remember correctly it was to agent bad as that he asked him how he knew that this was his gun and specifically asked why didn't you fingerprint on twenty four for my client determine whether or not about i never even touched that i'm and eight and i was respondent that we don't need to do have because we already know that this was his gun due to the due to the fact that this was panel that is the case to websites for example that he cites and his briefs the one that goes to the manufacturer it says that the manufacture mass produces these guns in different colors meaning we can produce this as a black  together and so there is no yes you shouldn't like on whether there was ballistic testing done that was you know the government did not that inference was still there and that's what the government did and this case was the government's theory that it was the same gun in this case as in the one that he was convicted of yes you  tell me all of the bases that would have been before the jury were concluding that it was the same gun you gonna be evidence for that case and did they have to but they couldn't have photo images of the prior going to cause that was never a little that was never a look at the end then you said there was testimony from an officer about how this gun was likely constructed yes was there any testimony about why there would be reason to believe that the prior gun was constructed in a similarly unusual manner dollars analysis if i understand it right so it could be particularly prejudicial you have the gun conviction and if it's only marginally relevant to demonstrate it's the same gun because it's very  it's means on the th recalculation maybe it's more prejudicial than probative so if there's a good reason to think it's the same gun that weighs would seem to me pretty strongly for the government's position that should be admitted so what is the than a month and i meant to say that this is not your this is not your typical for for be evidence where the government presence and an instance of a prior possession of a different con to show now so it's a matter of i guess more of curiosity and than anything how does the record explain why it is that the gun that served as the basis for the possession the earlier the commonwealth possession charge disappeared but what happened to that gun to surrender told us this just seems like an odd circumstance that the gun that would be the focus of that charge in fact respect to prior convictions is that is that what he was told her at your honor and that included more than the prior going conviction there were other convictions that were written that  defendant does not stand if you do take the stand and you put your character and in question the cover man has every right to to challenge you on it and every and every aspect  just said you just characterize have terribly prejudicial that would be i know you put that in the forty four dollars b context but if a defendant takes a stand that is going to be impeached for park convictions the trial judge is required to make an analysis i gather that the defendant was in effect denied his right to testify because the judge improperly advised him what the consequences would be perhaps impeachment by all these