was guns leave jacketed so i mean i know you've made that point and i certainly understand the point there could have been a lot of phone calls and maybe they were planning their next robbery or something maybe they weren't talking about what to do with these guns i want ask you what you think the remedy is supposed to government did take entirely irreconcilable positions in triggers this case in gates case about where gates got the gun basically because i know we got the language and in the gates plea agreement we've got other things on just that get driggers off the hook me why should it i don't can say it's black on tuesday and white on wednesday he didn't the jury take care of that but including on the receiving stolen property so far beyond my ability to discern why the jury  down the gate and there's absolutely no evidence in their brief before this court they say it could have happened it was a possibility they allowed the district judge concludes that the gu it just seems to me that looking at it from the point of view given this jury verdict the jury could have felt much more comfortable with that than trying to trace what happened to the gun and the rest of the guns after they were in the store where they got sold to  but all the things you mentioned come from turner's testimony basically about you know the saying the jury could credit that right they could have but for some reason they didn't across the board and what we're talking about is the who judge starr sense it said that he got them from people's lips but most importantly the government told the district court that driggers told him to twenty the twenty nine unknown person trial to the substance was on a relevance ground and here's why it's relevant to the government's case what we know about warren gates is he was an individual who purchased many of the stolen guns from at least two of the actual train that this was a huge leap i mean you you regard this as open and shut evidence that they were discussing disposal of the guns and i can think of a thousand things they could have been talking about  necessarily that it seems usually the government's got you know an informant or they've got tapes or they've got intercepted something as like there's a phone call or forty nine phone calls you know we have not that's why we didn't charge him with with us but we certainly think it's relevant it has any tendency to make a fact more probable it's a brick in the wall of all you haven't called this man ever we know this man was in the market that same day to buy these illegal guns because we know he bought seventeen other read in the english language that gates bought seventeen firearms he did and i also read your next sentence to say he bought seventeen firearms from people's and lipscomb he did so i don't know where firearms eighteen through twenty five come into the picture we can't prove that judge but it's only we don't have any evidence either that gates bought any more or that he bought them from driggers just there have been a lot of phone calls and i said they could have been planning the next robbery well i know absolutely they could absolutely and that's why we need to charge this but i think what's important is even if he didn't buy any let's say he didn't buy it let's say we have evidence that he didn't buy anything driggers i would argue it still relevant because it could have been an attempt to sell the fact that you don't contact the guy that we know was in the market for at least seventeen of the stolen guns the fact that the first time you ever reach out to the person you got forty six additional context in the coming days to me that at least there's  fact that we know this person that you're contacting for the first time in a five month period that they have to buy thirty of these is a guy that was in the market for always he does it meet the relevance bar which is very low as your honor knows in which was the only objection i tried so the court when you went on the record heard this agrees that it's certainly relevant as your honor says there could be a million other reasons for those those calls but the timing it's at least a fair inference for a juror to say that if you don't talk to this person for five months but your first call is that that within twenty four hours of we did the search so the question if you're on the jury where the other twenty nine this isn't that that's the reason this is relevant is because we're missing twenty nine guys that's in i shouldn't and that's the count the jury is not persuaded it let me let me talk about back so there's two things you're arguably some jurors could have said hey these guns are still in the box maybe that you thought they were likely they were told but he didn't actually know the government improve that he knew there were still so we agree mr turner we believe turner that he sold him thirty guns but the actually had the phone records printed out you have thousands of calls in a five month period to me that it's compelling that the first time you ever reach out to this person who we can prove was in the market for stolen guns is the day after our phone a lot because he didn't never called this person before that's why it's relevant so he's using their phones to call thousands of people never calls the person who we can prove is in the market for stolen guns until the day after the vice thirty of them and we're trying to show where did the twenty nine guns go it's just it's just of relevance it's overstepped we're not going to reasonable doubt but we certainly think that it's it's relevant and it has some tendency to establish what we're trying to show which is where to when not guns if there is no question that it will all turn to the to do the joint possession issue again judge opening the opening statement of defense counsel was quote the store they talked about when they go into there's another person who has access to the store and they know there's another renter mr odum so the defendant is not have exclusive possession that alone in the government's position opens the door to at least the instructor on joint possession and that wasn't the only reference the entire trial was about mr odom this e mail was found in the store he was a they cross examine the landlord they brought out this idea that there was another person who had access to the store we would argue that alone is enough to justify joint possession instruction you also have they find this gun in a tire somehow so yet it's hidden in the back of the correctly it just has another reason to give a joint possession even if you believe that someone else touched the gun or may have touched the gun that you have another option it was two people could possess a gun and then there was the testimony of the third the employee who might have helped unload only thing the witness said is that there were these contexts i think he said thirty eight or something like that between april thirteenth and some other day we don't even know that they spoke and they want to draw the conclusion that they're discussing stolen guns and one step further that he sold them stole a gun and they say otherwise in other pleadings he did i don't know what could be clearer i think i should be sitting there and he should be sitting here thank you thank you very much and if you would just by point and i believe we appreciate your service and the court your client thank you as well to the government will take the case