i'd like to reserve three minutes for robots yes the trial judge here made numerous errors in her jury instructions which were prior personal some of those errors were structural the st the judge improperly invaded the fact winding unction of the jury by instructing interest concerning the term gift in the eighty have form stating that it met the firear the form and the instructions form and that he reasonably believed that these transfers were gifts the term gift was not defined in the either the informant or the instructions and that yes it was out of concern for what she called the nature of the defense based on opening statements by trial counsel and then there was a off the record or off out of the presence of the jury discussion about the nature of the defense and whether she felt it it was appropriate or not so i think it was something that was not into subpoenaed prior to opening state the judge says instruction have the effect of directing a verdict on the false statement element of all four charges in this case this was an element the had to be proven by the government beyond a reasonable doubt likewise for obstruction as to the definition of an actual purchaser and the form actually used the language actual transferee slash bar but she is the term actual purchaser and gave an example that was based on the facts of mr koenig's case stating that if a person had expectation of a later payment and then did in fact receive a later payment that he could not be considered an actual purchase purchaser for the purposes of the form this that told jurors that in fact mr kearney had made a false statement on the form itself which again was an element that the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt counsel argue that he did not knowingly make a false statement i think that is a somewhat separate question from the issue of whether the statement was in fact false i think the jury needed to make factual findings with respect to both of those things was the statement false and if they found it was then they would reach the issue of was it a knowingly false statement as that term was  but it's my argument that they wouldn't they would have worked directly to find that the statement itself was false even before reaching the issue of knowing have that weapon at any price your client here didn't log in fact to make give unless you consider passing on of a discounted transaction the nd transaction it should should be noted that he will was not it was undisputed that he was not actually paid in full even for his own home costs after that occurred that he was given five hundred was which are you making i'm i don't see them as separate i guess you're right my argument is that the instruction was legally incorrect because it invaded the fact finding function of the jury that this was a jury nonsense the disco does not qualify as a gift he in fact of almost fully reimbursed for this dog for the money that he paid and his it was not a gift and so the that the gift that the term gift i didn't support mary meaning she actually use went to the heart of the defense and instructed gift means firearm not discount i think that goes much further than just saying arguments because it comes up in the concepts of motions in limine a friday introduced some instructions change instructions from a few years later to make the argument that it was a reasonable question as to what the meaning of the word was in responding to that we made the argument that that was a question of law and that there was a mistake of law opportunity under the statute doesn't allow for a cheap type instruction so that that was not a and available defense to make and the judge did caution the defense counsel not to go in that direction if you could argue about what the defendant understood but not the meaning of the former defense counsel nonetheless went ahead and so this goes not necessary to the correctness of this as sort of president it could have been raised as a question by the jury but in this case yes the piece was tried one hundred understanding that the judge the judge did not believe that was an issue for the jury the judge believed that it was a question that we needed to look at and then it did in fact given instruction on it and just still had the ability to argue that he had a differing view and therefore his crime was not knowing right there that it be the knowing doesn't allow for the possibility of a mistake it was possible to make that argument but the argument wasn't quite that way the defense counsel continued sort of drive in the direction of the form itself meant something different or was recently understood differently and that of course re and up against the instruction the reason why i think that's important to note is you know we went out there are other cases not a lot of talking about judges considering terms in these forms in this particular form one of the ones this regularly interpreted as unlove unlawful use of controlled substances courts have different ways of interpreting that the defense defended in office wanted to narrow it construction saying that it had to be somebody used them continuously regularly had that the defense defended chose to make that offer their pitch their argument to the jury that yes i used controlled substances not just consistently in regularly they certainly would have had seen their defense undermined when the judge gave the correct instruction but that's not what the law requires in that case that the defendant made in other alternative argument he never used at all but that is the risk the defense counsel ran here by taking a these two fires night club boundaries each could have easily gone to mind weapons on their own mind you they couldn't have gotten glock pistols because that's restricted to law enforcement so what's going on here why are they using a straw why are boston police officers in the business of right in this case it does appear that it was sort of was driven by that himself suggesting these are good guns to have if you want to have a really cool god this is one that can get for you and that there was a lot of it was in fact sort of they were asking for advice they were newly  registered wanted to get a firearm and their friends said this is a great one and i can get it for you you can't get in any other way but exactly why what motivated i don't know maybe just an interest in having a particularly difficult to get requirement that they have to be enforced i don't know i was i was looking for something it said that had the stats specifically of a regulation i have seen things that fit cases that say that it represents that the agency's interpretation of the requirements of  court just expressed some frustration with it perhaps it was different evidence and some confusion as to exactly how clearly the different forms that then describe it in the evidence the judge simply does it and the only thing that one can pick up is there seems to be some sense  in the fact that the st one talks about and not for resale struck the judge as more clearly points and something in evidence and clearly addressed and that the nd one doesn't it talks about up to these but doesn't talk about and not for or even local ordinances because we know the clock can't be sold to a person is not an officer that form allows the sale whether signed under perjury is not it's material because it's what allows the sale to go forward so that it is material under a nightclub owner and in fact was i think a person who maybe work that night club but he testified this is important i think because it he testified that the price of the gun was very important to him and that he could not afford to pay the full price if he hadn't been given the gift of this discount and it goes for the question of whether and he in fact testified that he viewed as a gift for that reason just one clarification what they're paid to the lawyer to his my understanding that although one non law enforcement officer is prohibited from buying these trial just just to your question about how the affidavit versus the certification letter we didn't really get to this but that i think that's important in terms of the  nd set of errors in this case which i legit in my brief which is a the judge repeatedly referring to the certification letter as a nap to david and in fact misquoting it at least three agree with respect to count one whether he made a false statement on the warmth therefore we can't agree whether he was an actual purchase or transfer buyer but if we can agree that he made a false statement in what they refer to as the affidavit which was again really a letter you know if we can agree to that can we convict and the judge's answer was essentially yes and so i think that's why that is very important this case unless there are any further questions