a gun looks real without more is insufficient to prove that the guns real now let me be clear that we are not arguing that they needed experts to examine the gun but they need more than it looks like it reality is that guns are getting better and better even experts can't tell from looking any more several of the things relied on in this case by agent clinton didn't implement it simply don't can't out as being pro a medalist clit you can check that out an aerosol can so it's part of our argument and it appears as a factor in other cases said that we cited that as there's that clintonian replicas as well in orange t well evidence that they should to support a conviction it viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences there are in the light most favorable to the government if a reasonable jury could have  big case that we say age if you if you want to scare someone to make it think you have a gun you pretend you have a gun the big case is a very nice  efficacy if they were recognized as mere air guns so yes someone waving around something that they want someone to believe is a gun will make threatening statements and will  gun if he was walking in with a fake gun they will pretend it is a real gun what's it our kids out from so i think it's a hard row to disagree with  there because the evidence i do use was that my client stayed in the car she did not get a good look at that she did the jury acquitted her of the rosemond version of the can of gun possession which would require advance knowledge that it was a gun the only found guilty on pinkerton reasonable likelihood so she is nothing she saw i had of time we cross examine cases there was as confidential informant who knew it was a gun is the sound like an dogs the chambering of a round or incur and what it sounds like when a metal gun drops on the floor or in rovers and where a witness handled it in smelled it to that replicas look just like real guns and the jury got it wrong in the jury instruction because that definitional paragraph was left out so they know nobody objected to that you're right sufficient or it's not so even if we assume that the jury that the jury wasn't properly instructed how does that interplay with the inquiry that we hear which is whether there was sufficient evidence with which a reasonable jury on that's perfectly perfectly ok know i think if you look at any of the cases and maybe and let me just look briefly bring greg is is in all other cases and our position  and at least the jury decided looked at it and made that decision in greg so what happens if the case were were the guy goes up to a casino operator says give me your money or i'm going to start telling there's all kinds of witnesses who testified it was a real gun it was a real gun the defender presents no evidence whatsoever that it was real and then asked us to  say on the basis of no evidence just go ahead and speculate that it might not have been a good imo to be a plastic gun i mean come on are you for real i mean no way the law can not count e kind of an argument cannot should it your honor in this case we specifically asked the witnesses we brought it out they all admitted replicas do look a lot alike  right there is actual testimony that this was a real gun i mean this is not speculation what are we supposed as i said before people for what are we supposed to do argument in sum and substance is a demand for this court to overrule united states versus greg and establish a new explicit were defacto bright line rule that unless you physically possess a firearm or to somehow  fire during the course of the event or is judged kelly put it you have a hole in your chest that the evidence would be insufficient to subside sustain in one thousand dollars foresee conviction simply put no other evidence no amount of eyewitnesses no amount of  video evidence would be sufficient to sustain an twenty four dollars c outside of the impossibly high standards that defense counsel proposes to so looking at the evidence as presented to the jury which they unanimously found guilt they found that there were two witnesses two eyewitnesses both themselves experience with firearms familiar with firearms that had held firearms and believed that the weapon to be real and that they would be shot if they did not comply with the robbers orders you have them physically close to the fire are as well you have almost forty year law enforcement veteran thirty eight years of law enforcement who was able to watch the firearm on video and pick apart to to rebut that i know there is a a t f agent that is routinely hired by defense counsel in albuquerque they did not and so the jury went to the jury room with that evidence and unanimously determined to the person that that that one hundred and twenty four dollars c was satisfied now in terms of the jury instruction argument again that was not preserved we've made that argument but even the instruction as given even putting aside the waiver argument it was sufficient and said that they needed to determine that it was a firearm and the definitional aspect of that instruction actually made the instruction more favorable to the government not more favorable to the fence so had the definition been provided actually would have been worse for the defense the definitional argument  clude frame or receiver for such a weapon which can't fire weapon at all as just an inert hunk of metal so the definition was actually narrowed based on the popular conception of the idea of what a firearm is  terms of defense's argument that greg predated this current period when we have more realistic firearms i don't think that that is factually the case i think any child who grew up in the sixty's and seventy's had a metal cowboy six shooter other group in the eighty's and had a jet black you know fake who's ear machine gun or pistol would understand that those are no longer able to be purchased you can buy a hot neon pink gun or a gun with a bright orange tip at the end so  the evidence presented in other cases in other circuits that has presented far weaker evidence in this case less eye witnesses no video evidence when we brief glimpses of the farm tucked into a waistband those cases are legion that demonstrate that there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for four dollars twelve cents c robbery outside of possessing the physical farm sure we would love to have physically obtained the foreign submitted to the jury but that was not possible nevertheless this court has held under greg that eyewitness testimony is sufficient so i don't want to belabor any points but i'm happy to answer questions that the court ball such is here as far as the jury the missing jury instruction narrowing it actually broadens because as it's evident from the record from what the foreman wrote me they decided they didn't even need to figure out if it was