there was no question that he possessed a firearm when he was arrested and there was no question that he also possessed dr hydrocodone pills that he intended to stop so the whole trial was about the relationship if any between the gun and those five killers this appeal raises several issues that all relate to the need for a nexus between the firearm and the drug offense and in one twenty four c case under the further it's primarily by common sense in deciding if and then quote the firearm further advanced moved forward or facilitated the crime so that pose it together for the jury i think it's hard for me to see didn't think this was a particularly easy case although there was only one element they were discussing middle liberated for several hours they asked about the instructions and the concern here is really that so that the dictionary definition that was pulled out of we are arguing eliminated the need for the jury to find the nexus the government's expert essentially said that you don't need to find a nexus because there's always a nexus especially eliminating the notion of further in the statute but i mean it was also sort of confusing but in a in a factual way and the district court failed to comply with d'albert when it allowed someone to the idea of lay experts but people like agent also are frequently involved in drug cases and just the judge said they testify about norms in the industry service and one of the norms in with you that is in this world today where everybody can pack and i guess they all are in wisconsin you know maybe you shouldn't go from holding a gun but the government has the job of showing the nexus they've got to show the drug dealing they've got to show the gun and i don't see why agent also isn't a good you know here's a scar pocket it's a particular small kind of weapon it's loaded there but what's in the chambers he says there are linked well he says  it's common in the industry for that link to exist but he's saying that goes beyond it's common in the industry to the idea that there are two reasons that someone whose feelings drops would have a gun and that includes someone who is dealing five hydrocodone pills and university far in madison wisconsin that's to protect your stash to protect your drug money or to rob other dealers but mr johnson never suggested that there was any other reason he why he has a gun and unfortunately the cases and referring to antique rifles and hunting rifles they sort of put the burden well i shouldn't go that far but it means that the defendant needs to show what else  one thing he might say is well i was told that in a seminar right on force the officers always say things like training and experience well what was the experience and is the training anything more than an urban legend right one could find that out on cross examination and then if it turned out that ultimate was just talking off the top of his head you'd have a very good appellate decision because maybe there are some people who know the relation between drugs and guns and also wasn't among them but it doesn't sound like the cross examination explored that issue well that was the gatekeeping of the district court at that point it was a trial in the district cour said as a matter of law you also need a title and you also need to show prejudice and if there was no cross examination was there an offer proof about what you think the expert the concern is reliability is the basis for his opinion and this is not a challenge to this sort of testimony as a general matter and most i have a hard time set that but i have a hard time seeing how it could be limited because it is actually such common testimony in these drug cases and you know of course maybe it's true maybe it isn't you know maybe some drug dealers like going around poison darts you know or something but it's it's throats data about that which neither side's brief discussion is it's about fifty percent of the fifty percent the guns are used in a very small percentage it's not at all clear that somebody who gets on the stand and says well i think drugs and guns are always associated knows what he's talking about that that's correct your honor and others but it wasn't made clear in this record whether the old girl knows what he's talking about evening in madison wisconsin in front of the university bar so the question is what is the nobody carries weapons on authorized or i'm sorry with your question nobody carries concealed weapons is not authorized i'm sure correct and people who happen to be selling a small amount of drugs with no significant cash may be holding a gun for the same reason as anyone are and so what is the meaning of protecting further and that is one reason and that is the reason the government eight point one direction sec to the point the other eight is bigger than six what it terrible way to decide the question and you're exactly right judge and there is no need to actually define and further it but you you want the judge to figure out something well the government in this case elected to follow this circuit's adoption of duran factors and thought that that would be helpful in this case the defense was allowed the option of getting think that members of the jury are limited enough in their english language capability that they don't know what in furtherance of means and you have a bigger problem here i i imagine this is not beyond the vocabulary of your average are on the so random therefore i'm not going to ask whether this guy knows beans about fingerprints anybody can testify about fingerprints or lots of people testify about d therefore everybody can testify about x is simply a non sequitur and that's the problem i have with the district or disclosure he said lots of people can testify about it there for all to contest it live and i don't see how got the proper from from the government as to what agent would testify again but the question is the basis of his knowledge was clear what he was going to say go back to my fingerprint exam it's clear that the person is going to say i found the defendant's fingerprints on the saran wrap around the brick of cocaine but whether the person has an adequate basis for doing that would be the question experience and this is an experience will case but it's experience i guess in what i mean so it is all total so i you know i've been doing this for ten years and i've done a study of the number of drug cases that had guns were involved in many cases and there was a real further insane weren't weird world by the way right now with respect to guns but it just kind of felt you know alter says well it feels like there were usually drugs and guns together hard to know what weight to put on that you know if he actually has studied his own experience or these investigated literature and somehow done something to back up that percentage he backs off he says well maybe it's not and in this case his experience is really similar some of the other cases that this court has has looked at and allowing this type of evidence and the four that would say that that was cited or relevant in this case alan blount eller intended so he's on par with what those other officer an agent experts are testifying to and he did have an opportunity that expensive and i have an opportunity to cross examine him and he did back off the one statement where there's drugs there's guns he got rid of always got toned it down often frequently correct but he didn't ever testify to the ultimate issue in this case you didn't testify about derrick johnson state of mind so the evidence that  as many factors if not more the gun was easily accessible in johnson's pocket it was a small so not a magic that was easily concealed it was loaded one in the chamber full making scene isn't close proximity to the drugs the gun was in the front pocket of his jacket so the n r a recommends that we should all go around with loaded guns mean you never know when a synagogue may be attacked or when a nightclub may be attacked or a school and if we don't all have loaded guns then people will be hurt well in this case the drugs if there's a very small number of people in that box then you might infer that when somebody is spelled with a gun and with drugs that the two are associated but if there's a very large number of people who are found with guns and without drugs saying well this person had a gun therefore it was to help drugs becomes a much tougher inference it would be very interesting to know whether alltel has any data by the prosecution insupportable because of course the district court refused to hold a hearing well i think the district court was relying upon his extensive experience the other cases that  shows and fights on t v shows these are associated you know on t v shows the bad guys fire one hundred sixty three shots and james bond is never get right in the real world things happen differently guilt i went over some of the factors there's more it's in my brief but i also think that the daughter framework was correctly applied i think that the district court correctly exercised its discretion in finding the testimony reliable and relevant  well the case to show further in some a lot of different ways so i mean the spirit is almost always protection but showing that they would use it for protection goes to were discovered going come from where did where did they put it in for what purpose what did people see them using the gun for never your honor it's not it's not a good track record for defense attorneys but again this is the frontier in terms of the facts thank you thank you thank you very much mr tight thanks well to mr and we will take the