this court to represent mr boyd of appeal i'd like to start by conceding that in this sufficiency of the evidence case according to the supreme court a case of jackson versus virginia and two brothers ages seventeen and twenty five her children who her sister who live there sometimes and her uncle marcus herbert who was in his thirty's the apartment itself was leased by her mother when the police executed the search warrant they found ammunition in a blue bag inside of another blue bag the detective who testified about executing a search warrant so that the ammunition was found in the bedroom the ms harrison and her children shared with my client when miss harrison testified under grant of immunity she said that the room contained some materials for going to her sister who wasn't there at the g also said other that the bullets did she says she didn't know the bullets were there she'd never seen my client handle any bullets and i your honor we admit for the purposes of this appeal that destroying the light at the evidence the light most favorable to the prosecution the court has to conclude that the bag itself belonged to my client i can't in good faith dispute that you are but having said that respect we submit that's not the end of the inquiry your honor but there is an absolute lack of direct evidence in this case winking my client to the bullets that were seized there was no evidence from anyone that said that ever seen him with bullets or put the bullets there moreover there was no physical evidence there was no d n a there were no fingerprints in the case and there's one bit of exultant already evidence when he was questioned by the police he was in a room with a recording device he did not know that the conversations were being recorded the police officers went to him a phone and he called home from ms harrison the conversation was played for the jury in their conversation he mentions the blue bag and he mentions her her uncle your honor and he talks about a watch in the back he does not say a single thing about any in the room that was blue but it was not recovered by the police are why might that be relevant i'm not sure about your theory of why it why it helps your client that there was another there was some luggage that was but if you drive just trying to be really remarkable about this case is that mr herbert her uncle who was in the thirty's obstructed the police when they came to execute the search more he held the door he didn't want to let them in that ga opportunity for anyone in the house who had any ammunition who said oh god the police are at the door to go take it and put it in a bag they knew what was on my client your honor and that equally possible that when the police came whoever really only ammunition took it and put it into that bag is which the police found when they got there a gun or in this case is basically a jump ball in terms of controlling the evidence of who actually only have a mission my client is this day has served in ten years in a federal penitentiary  because of this case without sufficient evidence to prove that he's the one that actually own the ammunition and we respectfully submit that in america that's unconscionable your honor we ask the court to sort of side the conviction thank you thank you uncontroverted trial that he lived in the apartment he lived in the bedroom he kept his things in the bedroom even though the bedroom was shared with his girlfriend in the five and seven year old child it's permissible for the jury to infer from that fact that he constructively possessed the property found in the room second apparent was his girlfriend belonged to harrison said in the grand jury as judge table just recounted that the blue bag with ammunition belong crime he asked his girlfriend and she admitted that was her on the phone to get her uncle her who's the other gentleman that was present and his partner at the time to do something with a piece of luggage appellant was instructing his girlfriend to have her get rid of all the contraband in the room in anticipation of a search warrant detective stargell had said this was the kind of case where a search warrant is normally his frequent government there was sufficient evidence construct is that as far as we know the police did not recover timepiece and luggage but only blue bag there was no evidence either way that you're ok and on your first point you said  they live there in the bedroom and kept his things there indeed don't we have grand jury testimony from person that was used on impeachment that the only only the defendants things were in the room that everything in the room was the defendants and later at trial she testified that the lies but wasn't there she said on that as well she said in the grand jury that everything in the closet was his and the bed the blue gym bag was found either in the closet or right next to it you offer the found it couldn't quite remember where it was found the only and then a trial she did say that her sister who used to live in the room had left some of the things in the closet and there were some women's clothes in the closet but there was no evidence that anybody else kept property there other than the sister for example the two older brothers that also lived there they had access to the room but there was no evidence at all that they actually had property there and of course the jury was also struck instructed on the principles of constructive as well as doing this action so it was certainly reasonable things there might have put something there in anticipation of the of the police entry and search warrant no your honor and that theory is articulated now for the french time that was not articulated a trial that the theory articulated trial was that the girlfriend didn't understand whatever the hell it was telling him from from the lock up and that she didn't do anything and that if he was referring to something he was referring to the light blue suit and not to the blue gym bag and clearly that the jury disregarded that interpretation and with that that suitcase wasn't seized either or what we had we don't know one of the other no it wasn't seized because nobody thought it was relevant to anything at the time there was a picture of it in the government put in evidence pictures of