three beyond a reasonable doubt of being a felon in possession of two firearms and of knowingly possessing the same two stone firearms there was no evidence of actual possession in this case the person knowingly has the power and intention at a given time of exercising dominion and control over the firearm whether directly or through another this court has counsel caution in assessing constructive possession cases based upon circumstantial evidence where there's evidence of other criminal activity and evidence of the participation by others as the eleventh circuit has put it these circumstances present a danger of guilt by intuition the problem is that propensity evidence a ssociation evidence can fill in the evidentiary get ups and prevent true individualize finding of guilt based upon the specific offense of gun including the two guns well i would disagree have about the conclusion about the two guns but they capsule form briefly the government's evidence was that  of the guns are piles and piles of other items that were stolen from the house across the street and piles of clothes we don't know where those clothes came from it was also a was that there was a a call by another homeowner on that same street saying that he that someone had pressed his  it's out that counts can i just want to try to see if i can separate two questions and see if you agree that they can be separated leaving aside for a second the question of his knowledge of firearms and is knowledge of whether they were stolen all right so as assume that the for purposes of the question that i that i would like to ask that the jury could have found sufficient knowledge of the firearms that they were in the trunk and that they were stolen just in terms of constructive possession do you dispute that his being found in the driver seat would under those circumstances give him sufficient dominion and control yes they did ok he didn't he didn't own the he didn't own the car there's no evidence i asked the wrong question do you dispute that the jury move that way to move that logo and actually put a key out of the but even cars with keys my car has a button any key and it's much easier for the driver to get the of actually no that's fair but but can i put a finer point on the question because i'm trying to actually understand your argument a little better if the firearms were in the back seat and there were no question of access to them would you then concede the point of dominion and control assuming knowledge and all those other things are satisfied we'll if you can't answer that one kind of try the front seat i'm just trying to figure out well certainly i think that this court's precedent on constructive possession gives guidance as to what counts as a fair inference from circumstantial evidence to constructive possession so for example where a defendant has exclusive dominion and control of the area where the gun is found that can suffice where a firearm is pointed in the direction of one defense w another number of potential people who may be the person in control of the gun when it's pointing toward one person it such that there is easy access to the gun could also we have we have a drug case that i remember where it was a conspiracy there were a number of people standing together and some yards away i believe in a dumpster or trash girls were all the machine swer and this kind of argument was made we had no problem with that that you know were you have people involved in this kind of criminal conduct the jury could infer that they've they want to be brought into it if they weren't willing to give each other knowledge of where the weaponry was and all that well but i don't know where that i don't know where you're going with the joint possession argument well i thought you were trying to say that i thought the point of your argument was the the potential inability to get into the trunk is what makes this one different i'm just trying to determine if there's something else or if that's what it is that's one factor also other factors are that he there was no evidence tons of clothes and nobody had any idea where those came from there were no fingerprints inside there was no sighting of mr rudolph anywhere near the trunk and the guns had been out at least one of the guns had been out of the trunk gone from the house to the car to mr lamaze car yes to to another house and then back into the car it going from well yes and we don't know who it was to the issue of his ability to access the guns our whole point at trial and on appeal is that these are two guys who are in our robbery burglary business together the evidence are so rational jury could find is that they're stealing stuff from houses and then keeping it in the trunk of his car that being the case as partners in crime they could find joint access to the items that they've stolen and kept in the trunk now as to the question of we're golfing being in the driver's seat of the car at four fifteen in the morning on november twenty eighth it's not just that he's caught in the sea as the driver others actually evidence that he drove to that location mr le may makes a statement to the police officer which comes in as evidence show that the defendant actually had the desire i guess is the word to pick up the gun merely that he knew of the presence of the gun and had the ability and intention under certain circumstances to to control it not that at this defining moment he was desiring to control it which is a little bit philosophical distinction  but important one perhaps here that distinction is sort of swamp by the evidence we submit because if you believe that there was evidence that he was involved in the actual theft of those guns from the eighth night and we believe the evidence supports that then it's really a small step you get to the point where you say well if he's keeping these guns with his body in the trunk of the car couldn't a rational jury just infer that they have access to the items in the trunk or cardless of weather cars these days have you no switches to activate the trunk i mean i haven't seen a car in my lifetime that doesn't have the ability to pop the trunk from the inside but even if you put aside that factor the evidence suggests that they're going in and out of this  little bowling court house is located directly across the street from where the cars parked for fifteen in the morning the evidence shows quite clearly that they burgled that house moments before the police arrived they they took the spoils of that burglary and they stuck it where in the truck now you could say well isn't it possible that mr rudolph he was just waiting in the car as mr le may went into the  it and put the stuff in the trunk but the jury could easily from klute it that they were together on that burglary after all mr rudolph is is there with him he was apparently involved in the search in burglary as well so it's sort of a natural inflow in ferns that when they were or burgled the lynn court house and put this stuff in the trunk the guns were well right there next to the items that they just stole in from the l court house so that gets you your access in control regardless of whether you know the mechanism to pop the trunk was working that day the court has no further questions will rest on  brief thank you