ition in another part of the house and the fence for the gun was one of the fans and the fans for the ammunition in the jacket was a completely separate and different defense so that's why it's important in this case that you get it right that you have the gun an us and they were arguing about this exact same point and that the judges judge didn't see any problem with it and i and defense counsel was concerned about this exact problem he kept saying you're going to have a split we're not going to what the with the general system back i don't know i am not from that district so i'm not really sure i am from a with judge kind he usually asked for a proposed jury instructions before the case even starts as part of the proper operations usually about ten days before trial both sides will some a proposed instructions and i i can only assume that happened in this case because they talk about proposed instructions during the trial certainly free to suggest any proposed your instructions that they may help you concede that the jury instruction is incorrect no art at all the statute bases criminal liability on possession of a firearm ammunition what happened in this case i think is actually the government was put to have a greater burden then was necessary that the indictment charged in the can junky that he possessed the firearm and the ammunition it's entirely permissible to charge him the conjunctive and then instruct the jury and the disjunctive which is what happened in this case if there was any error in this case the error was in the form of the  that they found him guilty of possessing the gun and the ammunition so they necessarily had to be unanimous with respect to the gun so who cares about the ammunition the guns are sufficient to support the verdict of guilty and as you point out i case and you look at the verdict form the jurors are going to leave the verdict form out of that when the when when the instructions were finished in the jury was told what to do you had invited a serious problem no i don't think so at all you know that with the instructions thinking they could come back with a verdict even though they disagreed on what the act was absolutely but you can't ignore the form my question to you i just don't you think that after the crime and and that makes sense because there may have been error but the men didn't affect anything it didn't affect the administration of justice the person with the been found guilty anyway because it's obvious that you were and those those harmer's their rules normally apply to the intersection of evidence or some state misstatement made by the prosecutor or some minor in consequence but here here we have an error which is what you're so fundamental if it wasn't for the verdict form that where the jurors were unanimous with respect to the possession of a firearm i would agree with you i have a hard time understanding given the facts of this case where the defendant confessed to probation officers that he possessed a firearm a day or two later he confessed again to out an a t f agent that he put the possessed the farm the facts and circumstances surrounding the finding of the weapon in the home coupled with the verdict form that was unanimous with respect to the gun doesn't leave me with the feeling that there's been any injustice here what you see at this arms fair if you're saying that he possessed the gun and ammunition we can exercise in my opinion that and ammunition nobody cares about the ammunition they found that he possessed the gun that's fission under the statute the government doesn't have to prove make what they decided the best feeling and if i understand the court's legal question i'm just saying if you read the transcript which you see is when the case was tried the parties thought the ammunition in the in the jacket pocket was extremely important answer that question i don't know what to do ali knows that the tone of this trial was very much focused on the ammunition in the jacket and to think that they simply disregarded all that and just said i want he had the gun that's enough i don't think that that's what happened in this case and i think when detour during carmichael's original appeal he raised a very vigorous claim that the government did not comply with their obligations under the free flieger remans i filed an opening brief and the government