welcome hope you all didn't have any trouble getting here this morning i know the websites of the course close but here we are hard at work beverly martin and this is joe pryor and julie cards so you know the lighting system so i won't go over there but i'm going to do my best to and and with that i will call the case of united states versus over walk good morning issue in this case is whether prosecutorial misstatements made during the trial and during closing argument  violated the defendant's due process right in this case but for the misleading statements made back made to the court by the prosecutor related to the new jersey criminal docket sheet that evidence would have been excluded from the trial and never considered by the jewelry are you making a sufficiently the evidence argument about the use of the docket sheet to prove the conviction or is it a prosecutorial misconduct claim or both your  honor when you say it's both but your brief seemed to me to be phrased only in terms of applying error issue that the prosecutor should not have made an incorrect statement of course there was no objection i don't see anything in your brief talking about insufficient the inaccurate statements made by the prosecutor to the court during trial what were playing air and but for those misstatements that doctor would have never even come in to evidence well the prosecutor statements made at the end of the trial the document came in a whole lot sooner so prosecutor statement had nothing to do with the document coming in as as why you've primed your argument you bring to it is that it was an incorrect statement but the jury had the document the jury could see the document the jury could see the original sentence the jury could see the reduced sentence having trouble understanding what about what the prosecutor said was inaccurate that information is where the prosecutor told the corps that mr walker was sentenced to not less than two but no more than three years and it was an inquiry that the corps was making to determine whether or not the document was going to be sufficient to show that he was a convicted felon and but has she stated that he was recent it's a three hundred sixty four days the court would have likely determined that the that the that it was not going to be sufficient to show that he was in fact the can be but don't we don't we look to what the law allows rather than what he was actually sentenced to in other words if for the crime for which he was convicted he could be sentenced to more than a year then it qualifies as a federal felony isn't that right so i don't see how you show prejudice here well that's correct reiner however in the eighteen u s c nine twenty warrant that statute requires that the court look at the state statute to see requires that the court look at the state statute as it relates to those convictions and the state statute in new jersey showed that my clients prior to convictions were in fact misdemeanors the sentence allow for those misdemeanors however was up to three years which would be more than a year however there's also a new jersey statute that delineates exactly which crimes calls a person to not be able to possess a firearm and that statute that none of these arguments were did your prior counsel not weighed this particular argument  honor i believe as a relates to when there is plane air whether or not there is an objection to the statements made by the prosecutor plane air would be sufficient enough to for for the nine twenty one eight twenty it defines what the term crime punishable by imprisonment for time exceeding one year what it does not include and specifically it states  state offense classified by the laws of the state as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less so that particular statute actually enlarges what the court constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law other jurisdiction in which the proceedings were hailed any conviction which has been expunged or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter mr walker never lost his right to carry a firearm in new jersey as it relates to those  convictions he never lost his right to carry a firearm under the laws of new jersey but all of this is brand new material it's hard for us to say it's plain when essentially you're almost testifying and we're now getting an answer of things that you're telling us that had nothing to do the t docket she shows that mr walker was convicted of a felony and the response by the prosecutor according to the transcript that was provided it was that he was sentenced to two and no more no less than two or no more than three years and that was the only way that the court would have allowed it to to be introduced to the jury has she in fact stated that he was  twenty that states that we look at the laws of the jurisdiction to which the proceedings were hailed and according to new jersey law mr walker never lost his right to carry a firearm therefore i know but i mean he was sentenced year it does not limit it to felonies and in fact the language of twenty b seems to imply that mr minors are in fact an acceptable type of offense as long as twenty and insofar as so in terms of the fact that that is the error that she's challenging which as the court has already pointed out was not raised in the court below we think that the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held which would be new jersey long and according to new jersey law mr walker never lost his right to carry a firearm as a result of the conviction which is to see thirty nine and seven delineates certain persons that cannot possess a firearm after conviction and that statute firearm it list if a person is convicted on it which are the statute to see three nine three the per prohibited weapons statute it also it actually reads any person having been convicted in the state or elsewhere of the crime of aggravated assault arson burglary excuse it's dorsch and homicide kidnapping robbery aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault whether or not with or hav numerated in section two c thirty nine dash one hour it actually list out specific crimes where if convicted a person cannot possess a firearm the crime that was that mr walker was convicted of did not cause him to not be able to obtain a firearm license in new jersey and so a one nine hundred seventy nine conviction that where he never lost any of his rights  should not bring mr walker under any type of violation for possessing a firearm by a convicted felon under federal law if the state law does not prohibit him from carrying a firearm after the conviction and for that reason our argument is that the evidence was insufficient to show that mr walker file late at nine twenty two g despite the fact that the crimes he was convicted of actually he could have been in prison for up to three years he never lost any of his rights because those two crimes the the conspiracy to obtain money were tuning to be poor and also the welfare fraud convictions those convictions did not cause him to lose his rise under new jersey law to to possess a firearm and that's our argument as it relates