has been in jail for over a decade for a crime which a jury has already concluded that he was justified in committing your honor as the courts i'm sure where he was charged with murder in the first and second degree and also with unlawful possession of firearms on a crime of violence the jury was charged in this case with the defense of self defense and returned a verdict of not guilty what the jury was not advised of your honor was  that absolutely and it was not requested although it had been in the circuit for about a decade i will concede that it had been applied to the local statute but the federal statute had been applied but so were we reviewing  that defense with respect to the unauthorized possession i can't conceive your honor of someone raising the defense of self defense and having a strategic reason not raise a defense of justification to use the very firearm well it was used in some instance it's possible that there could be such a reason where is here the government and amending its information to expand the period of time of the possession such that that period of time implicated not merely the fleeting event of the shooting car but also the shooting earlier in the day of the dog and subsequent to the shooting the possession of the weapon within the car up to the point that mr lose disposed of it isn't it conceivable that one would not want to charge because argument purposes that would open up the prospect of highlighting those facts isn't that at least conceivable i don't believe it is around the reason i say that is because although your spin became the government try to expand the timeline remove the charge there was always possession of the firearm during a crime of violence and of course if i point out that euthanasia would not be included in that i don't believe it was expanded to euthanasia would but if the jury was reminded that mr lewis had  hesitate to conclude that mr lewis was on notice that he was being charged with the firearm as it related to the to the dog being shot when did i doesn't have to be necessarily with relation to the dog no notice b as to that that happened to be one of the events that's in the record but the point was that the charges set forth in the information of on authorized possession had a period of time that was much more extensive than the fleeting episode of the shooting right where you're so that that enabled the government to offer evidence of possession throughout that continuum certainly honor but we have t or on the day and in addition to that your honor the jury flipped that the reason the government brings up the hay had begun earlier the day is to try to discount his claim of self defense which the jury obviously rejected because if mr lewis had possessed a gun earlier in the day i don't for two reasons one is because it's a the absence of a jury instruction which requires the court to look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant in addition to that your honor this is we have a jury verdict here which is at least partially i'm sorry your client and i don't read exactly but if if they don't hand the gun over and greg either and he's still entitle to the jury instruction that is my point ron there's never been a holding in the circuit that says you have to turn the gun over to place  and doesn't that make your heel harder to climb when reviewing your plane or i don't think it does because the third circuit cases have dealt with an issue where the defendants didn't hand over the gun to the police and they were still of the instruction what the third circuit of what the district court was was adding an additional element and saying henceforth are saying actually you were always required to turn this farm over place but that was never the holding of third circuit your honor and if you look at are if you're familiar with the version these are these are big roadside garbage pails might not be the smartest thing to do but you remember we're sitting here in a courtroom pondering these things this is a man who is just involved in life and death struggle he gets rid of the farm and that what i said i the district court gave him basically a hobson's choice he holds on to the gun and takes a police station the court might say you know what you should have got rid of it right away you held onto it for too long and you actually look at the what is that but this is a city disposal of god under the circumstances there's no ideal think what we're going to do here and i think throwing in the garbage bin is as safe as his other options which were leave it on the street or leave this man to die in a car with a gun in it which i don't think is as  as the record indicates he drove by mr george to the hospital but he was really in a situation where there was no perfect thing for him to do and i see he made was a reasonable choice which is get rid of the gun throw it in the dumpster this defendant didn't just throw the gun away he testified that he wanted to he came up with the story that he wanted to tell the police with regard to what had happened and he took the bloody sure of his  victim and the gun and threw them both in the in the garbage so that he could tell the police that he had been the victim of that they had been the victim of a drive by shooting he didn't drive his friend to the hospital he drove to the police station to tell them this the government believes that mr lewis was simply not entitled to the justification instruction on the on authorize possession charge and my correct answer you are could you just take that and other testimony that came out that there was a relationship between these people that they got in the car that he got in the car when he got in the car excuse he was not frightened he told the prosecutor that he got in the car willingly with his friend and that all the time that they spent driving around st thomas he said they drove up and down and all over the hills the defendant had a gun in his hand but that he wasn't looking at the defendant he was shifting gears and he was driving and i'm more interested in hearing your position your position with respect to the entitlement bill known by mr what was of a self defense instruction with a view poor condition of the third circuit your prudence at that time what about halal which mr candy referred to in his argument  is is there not a basis in an existing law for the court to have given such an instruction on the position there had to be in order for the court to that given such instruction there had to be sufficient evidence that there was a basis for my position is that the the evidence if you read it carefully does not provide security well if you're not going to answer my question i don't want i thought i was trying to i was asking believe the jury and that they interpreted what he did in the way in which his attorney directed it is possible ok so if that's a possible you know what what what's the what is the law and the t that period of action the period of concession that he not only had it for the purpose of defending himself allegedly but he then picked it up for the purpose of disposing of it in a manner so that he would not be thought to be had committed a crime he persisted for quite a bit of time he went to the police but he didn't bring the put the gun to the puts clearly that time alone this is not authorized possession and limited to the earlier time which is the best course of action an unauthorized possession it was it is also possible that a jury could have read into that a justification defense particularly with respect to the self defense instruction which was given and also the  and the reason for that is the reason they make these are good stories i say this because of the district court said he should have had it when he went to the police as the government is saying he should have thrown it out the window during the fight and the problem with these arguments is what the government is really re issue there your honor as it relates to the government's three argument and be the third circuit case law that has never required some benevolent intent after you because that's a far for a legitimate reason in both record is i think he pushes a by the side if he doesn't say how many minutes he had it but i think the record indicates it was a short period of time he took it in through the dumpster he had a long enough to get through the dumpster yes but i think we'd have to look at the r from the police with the firearm i think it's he throws the gun down and then he continues running i think that have a whole load of bricks there are so i think those in those situations those actions are just as bad if not worse than there's no evidence that he had an opportunity between that dumpster and you know pushing the body into the passenger seat to dispossess himself of the fire and we have to look at a resource situation this is a life and death struggle and i think to look back and say instantaneous