thank you your honor jonathan on behalf of john sanchez i'd like two minutes for a bottle unless the court has questions about the second amendment argument i plan to confine my argument to the stipulation sure we you keep your voice please tell us you  this case is about the government's failure to follow a very simple procedure for the presentation of the evidence in a criminal case in james this court held that when the government wants to rely on a stipulation to establish an offense element it has to put that stipulation in evidence but either reading it to a jury or admitting it is an exhibit that is not hard rule to follow well let me ask how does the fact that the case was tried by a judge rather than a jury think the analysis in this case your honor i don't think it affects the analysis of the starting point for that conclusion is jackson the canonical supreme court sufficiency of the evidence case which tells us i believe in footnote eleven jackson was tried by a judge did after the fact file the stipulation on the electronic docket affect the argument i don't think it affects the argument at all your honor james requirement is that the stipulation  million and one materials are found the tronic in those documents are not evidence i'm not aware of a single authority saying that putting something on the c f system is enough to give it the status of evidence that sustains a criminal conviction in james this court did not have the benefit of the actual stipulation of the record but it made very clear that that wasn't the reason it was a finding that been insufficient the court said after it said we don't know what the stipulations said that was the first thing it said it then s significantly even if the stipulation that was supposed to be read orally to the jury were crystal clear the stipulation was never entered into the evidence and read to the jury there was therefore no fact in evidence that the jury could take as proved conclusively or not and what this for insufficient evidence do you agree that the panel need not reach the second then to the sheep i do you know that issue would only be relevant if there was a conviction on the books that violated the second amendment evidence the stipulation or they could read it to the jury right correct on it and is reading it to the jurors that quote another way of entering it into evidence yes your honor and i and my memory not be  instruction that defines evidence and then defining evidence the instruction includes what a stipulation is and it ends with no further evidence need be offered to prove the the fact that sanchez was tried by a judge to not play a jury may be a big difference but the fact that he was tried in a bench trial does not change the rules of evidence and if you just look at jackson versus virginia felony crime for which is that time would be served for over a year you failed to do that and then now you've got a bench of post hoc rationalizations why you didn't need to do the but that's really not the case i mean i think my what might have happened is you realized later that you failed to do that but and that's why you docket because you thought somehow that would make up for that that it really doesn't under our case and so i don't think in any other situation the that was an element of the crime it had to be proven and it was always proven by stipulation and that's exactly what happened here or rather what didn't happen here i went to sweden that changes control and change more  yeah just a few points and i'll try to hit quickly first when my colleague emphasized that in james a stipulation was not part of the record the quote i read earlier from that case made clear that wasn't the basis for this court's decision the basis for this court's decision was that the whether the stipulation in that case was or was not admitted that just wasn't the issue and that this court assumed the stipulation was admitted the question it asked was whether the exhibits needed to be separately admitted from the stipulation and if they answer that question was no i appeal ation is in the exhibits or in two but that doesn't answer what you have to do to put the stipulation in the case that answer that question is james which says you have to put in evidence as far as lancelot using the term self executing  all that term means is that once a stipulation is properly presented nothing further needs to be done to carry out its terms so if a stipulation says a b c agreed to once you properly introduce a stipulation you don't need to separately do stipulation then the terms as off execute them and the case again that tells us how to properly introduce the stipulation is jamz finally just one last question comment rather about getting lucy to see what the rules of evidence and strauss i would be very reluctant if i were this court to do that there are thousands of bench trials that take place in this circuit every year and while my colleague is correct that the rules of what's admissible are a little bare laxton bench trials the rules of what is record the same way you would in a jury trial if you start carving exceptions into that regime because the government doesn't want to say your honor i move to admit this stipulation we risk creating a lot of confusion for for judges for trial court judges for judges on this court about what the evidentiary record is in the bench trial and there's no reason to do that the rule in james is very easy to follow and the government failed to follow it here so the conviction should be reverse