today by she will listen to the arguments when they are available on line and she has submitted some questions that we can also ask here today so she will be it is very involved in this this appeal as well as the and again i apologize for not pointing that out viewed as being part a closed container that all of the items that are found within a surge of how the point of an arrest or whatever will be part of this close container however in this situation in this case you have nine people in they couldn't point it and why i didn't see anything in this particular record that said why they didn't wait other than they had a bird in hand and they were going to do something about it so why can't they wait you know and i don't know the answer to that question i think realistically you want to be were executed more intense someone in you looking for a weapon the belief i think in this particular case and i can talk to the broader world of how these cases are investigated and tried but in this particular case where they had somebody who they already knew in previous felonies or in prison there even then i think the feeling was that they wanted to get whatever charge infix could be filed at that point i understand the concept of wh thing to say whoa hold off on this because in fact everything's together and to the extent that we're going to have the closed box analogy it works here because my reading of hundred book decisions is that the defendant was the one who kept going in and out of the vestibule that nobody else was seen in the vestibule and so the question why now we can perhaps get more feet in the air here where you hear you know sheriff for misdemeanor amount of marijuana right didn't i mean i didn't get arrested in this he says by the way and this is something that is mine right but i guess i mean it's a philosophical issue that you probably have no control over but it just seems to be that where there are confidential informants and they don't want to go to trial on that is they will wait as long as they have to wait until that confidential informant is done with his or her assignment and nothing happened you know those prosecutions go forward here the more important you probably know everybody's mind was that guy you took it they didn't have to leave it there they were entitled to take it in inventory it didn't have to charge people probable causes threshold but a whole lot of other considerations go into it and i don't think as italy presidents can charge something without hearing so reasonable belief not only the probable cause but they're going to in fact they have enough evidence what happened in the next hundred sixty days that prevented the state from bringing those charges on a more timely basis and i don't know if you did ok again i'm not going to charge ten people with this gun but i don't have see when they heard the cops at the door could have been the defendant just having it there because he knew them be a lot of people in this house in the same spots where he has various various drugs and perhaps make out th weapon it could be somebody else's weapon because again you get a group of people in the house you can't charge him and you can't charge an end of the people with a gun when nobody knows who that is that's one thing that it's one thing churchill do with a particular amount of marijuana but again it's one thing to really to a residential people who are all in the same proximity as open to drugs it's another thing to charge someone with where very significant weapons charges on october fifth so now we're really within a two month period not even two months we have a grid it's listed there apparently is some confusion maybe between telling the misdemeanor sister who has a marijuana charge i have no idea from this record what the interplay was between the detectives and the weapon and the felony assisted the state attorney's office who they would have dealt with and so i  defendant said it needed that it was his and so in that respect hunter would be perhaps less compelling however i think that the problem with hundred one hundred two hundred speak record must be resolved in the defendant's favor and if anything the facts in this case are more compelling than in hunter and hunter it was a common area of vestibule and the stairway where these items were found and there was a  here the state is the defendant's home with a search warrant for a gun based on a confidential informant statement that the defendant had a gun there also in the search warrant looking for evidence that this is the defendant's residents are fake because there's maybe some concern that it's not necessarily his house they're looking for a beer or something that was in the year i'm not certain about that but the confidential informant said the defendant has a gun in his and in his home the lack of due diligence here is what is the important factor in this case the fingerprints were lifted within six  search when the search warrant was executed on november twenty fifth the states sat on that fingerprint for nine months before they asked for analysis to be done then w stake dropped the ball i'm getting there the evidence that they needed if they had gotten the print if that sent it off at the same time that they sent off the the campus for testing they would not have faced these speedy trial  wait two hundred days and sit on a print on the evidence on time on the gun which is the whole reason they were at this house in the first place to get classics charges they waited and set out the evidence and it's not in their interest hunter by arguing that the defendant had actual possession of the cannabis but only constructive possession of the gun and therefore that somehow distinguishes it from the court and hunter that paragraph seventeen and twenty two nineteen they talked about possession crimes on they they talk about constructive possession which is what the defendant had is a single after purposes of compulsory jointer but also i go to point out that and i argue this in my brief ownership is different than possession the ownership by itself does not establish immediate and exclusive control over the item which is required for actual possession and i think i have actual possession of this pen but i don't ownership of a pen and my house but i don't have immediate and exclusive control over it my ownership my statement of ownership doesn't convert constructive possession to actual possession and it's not necessary for the state to make that kind of mental gymnastics to prosecute someone for possession because they can do it as whether you have actual or constructive possession the only reason they're trying to shoehorn the constructive possession into actual possession is because they're trying to extinguish hunter for compulsory jointer just nestle and it just the analysis doesn't work even  critical the record doesn't establish that the necessary facts to be able to draw this distinction because the supreme court in hunter at paragraph nineteen said a possession crime at eight thirty he was interviewed nearly two hours later and made the statement to the investigators that canvassed mine well by that time he did not have immediate and extensive control of the contraband that have been seized in his home so the the ownership itself statement of ownership cannot retroactively change the constructive possession to actual possession and this supreme court in hunter rejected the absurd and just consequences of the state's actions in that case this case is more compelling than hunter and it possession and what moment in time with looking at simply specifically what the court is saying it doesn't want to see and so i think that at times counts as distinction between ownership and possession somewhat baffling i think when a defendant saying that i admit that i can't explain what ten months have these things down but despite that we didn't have the evidence until the report came back well let's talk a little philosophy again and maybe it's not going to be based on this record but you said you don't understand hunter if you look at hunter and some of the other cases that have been coming forward delayed is an issue in having a you know meet the supreme court has decided that it's time to get it more organized because in some of the problems we've had in the past why wouldn't couldn't that be a motivator in hunter even though the way around the block to get there one of them and i think it's like to wonder when he was a person who was a bit of a bunch of teenagers to kill somebody why he wasn't charged with the murder out for off my sentence and nowhere in the record does it say this is just my own specular no where in the case does it say