the government contents and the jury found in this case that the residence he gave was not his true address and thus it was a false statement if you're honest i would like to focus on two of the issues in this case which both revolve around the evidence that was done was not admitted in this case the defendant did not receive a fair trial we believe here because substantial evidence was submitted that tended to show that he was engaged in some other wrongful conduct which appeared to be selling guns or just repeating firearms to other people and mr gonzales was not charged with this crime he was not charged with making a false statement on the had to give a rational chain of inference is that he had to give a valid reason for the introduction of this evidence and yet it has never failed to ever really give a valid reason for why this evidence was admitted well i think i think we've offered at least we tried and i ask you to respond to what the the evidence with regard to the gun and what you study suggests another kind of illegal activity actually may be used to explain why it is that made the difference was the one addressed found and offered up and why it wasn't simply an accident or happenstance that he used in arizona addressed because of the difference in his ability to purchase firearms in arizona w arizona address as opposed to his ability to purchase firearms either in arizona or in california with the california address that appeared to more accurately reflect his current residence and this his motivation for doing what he did can be explained by the firearms and his ability to do something else with a firearms your i believe that that goes to his motive for buying the firearms but not to his motive but i don't know if he's going to buy one firearm a month with a california address and doesn't have that limitation with an arizona address and he sure bought more than one firearm why doesn't it go to the used to the address your honor he could have been buying these guns for a collection as lets the statement that he gave he could have been buying the firearms for whatever reason that doesn't he couldn't have done any of those things if he used a california address could he know he would not have been able to buy firearms in arizona isn't that the point with it goes to the fact that he used an arizona address for a reason but arizona address because with an arizona address you can buy a whole lot more firearms well your honor he could of been an arizona resident and bought all of those firearms so he could have been engaging in straw purchases and still been in arizona residence so it doesn't prove that but the the album explains why he would use an arizona address even if he's not an arizona resident in reality which is the point of the government's case well your honor it th amount of evidence that it put on on that issue i think that's far more than what was necessary and i don't believe that i still believe that that that the address can you give says not prove his motive for fire he whines about the he was asked for a driver's license right he was here i gave them an expired arizona license and asked him if he had a valid one he produced a california valid california driver's license and he was asked where do you live purchased traffic stop he has an expired arizona license with a perfectly valid california license with the california address and they ask him during that stop where do you live and he tells them california right well your honor he initially gave him the arizona driver's license and i think you also initially sad that he lived in arizona at this point would address and then he from the results of the traffic stop couldn't the jury properly conclude that in fact he was a california resident they may have concluded that and we don't object to the evidence that was taken from that doesn't that have that one judge clifton asked about and that is his motivation for saying on the form i'm in arizona resident when in fact he was not well your honor in fact if he gave his heart a son a driver's license after the traffic stop and he had that moment he has no idea that this is in connection with the firearms and the fact that he gave an arizona driver's license that also be a fact that tends to show that he thought in arizona he should use an arizona driver's license i just i don't believe that there's a connection between the two you've told us that the jury co on the information before it that he was in fact a california resident well as i read yes that you can say that well your honor i think that there was evidence at that time that rational collect connection between the statement he made that the jury concluded to be false about his residency and the amount in nature of weapons he was b is it relevant to providence and there's an argument that the government the jury could well say look we don't understand this looks like a big next up to last and we're not going to convict anybody on next up and so the government fills in the gaps and this is why he was doing and that's and that's what he's charged with and why does not apply a small reason to that the atoms because what the government had to prove was that he knew he put the wrong address down on the form they had to prove that this was not his residence and in fact under the definition of residence here he could even have two residences both in arizona and california if you like that sometimes at one place and other times at another what they had to prove that was that he was not living part time at the minimum at arizona because if he was living part time in arizona he could buy guns legally in arizona and used his arizona address so that but the government did not emphasize those facts the government emphasized the facts regarding the amount of guns that were purchased the amount of money spent on the purchase the fact that they were not collectible actually live there doesn't that speak to the residence issue directly well your honor his explanation was that they had been stolen and that explanation by the government allowed to offer its explanation its evidence too and doesn't that speak directly to the question of whether he lived there he says he stored in the truck outside the house or not there and his explanation is they were stolen but he doesn't report that there stole them let me speak to the residents here on earth the fact that they weren't there i don't think proves that he wasn't living at that residence while he bought a whole lot of guns you got to put them someplace nice as their home but they're not home and doesn't suggest maybe that's not his home it could your honor but i don't think it did in this case he said he kept them in the truck in the garage and that he didn't want his mother to know that they were in the home because she was supposed to firearms and that was the reason they were in and it offers an explanation for why isn't it relevant to the question of whether that's his home he says he's got them at home but they're not there he offers an explanation isn't all of that on the subject of whether the place he said that they'd be located in was actually his home well it may be relevant your honor but you still have to do a balancing test under rule four zero three and i think that the amount of evidence on all of those issues was so prejudicial that the jury that the trial was revolved around whether he was involved in this criminal conduct of distributing firearms and not regarding the residence is true and there was substantial evidence supporting the defense argument that he did reside there and so this was not a strong case for the government on the residency issue i'd also like to address the issue of the phoenix i tried this case along with mr mcclelland with respect to the issue of the evidence that the government offered with respect to defend its conduct during the course of the purchases at their side to come clear up a couple of things on the record first the defendant's license had not expired it had been suspended by the state of arizona when the defendant was pulled over during the traffic stop he handed the driver's license the the initially he handed the arizona driver's license to the police officer the police officer then asked him what the address was and he could not tell the police officer what the address was on the residence that he said he lived at in arizona at that point he was then confronted  fact that his driver's license was his arizona driver's license was suspended so then he immediately shift gears pulled out the second driver's license which was a valid arizona driver's license and then immediately changed his story instead oh i am a resident of prior occasions he never admitted to the officers that he had purchased a total of ten guns on prior occasions he said that he had purchased approximately five guns on one prior case when they went to the house the officers when they conducted the search they wanted to  consensus or they only wanted to search it is belongings they knew that they were going to his parents house so they they want to be very cautious so before they conducted the search the search they said what in this house is your and the only thing he had then a fight was one duffel bag containing clothes and toiletries he did not identify any other location in the house outside of the truck that possibly where the guns were there was nothing in the house not a toothbrushing asked me in any drawers nothing in the closet nothing anywhere that he could say i have a possession in this house all we had was one simple travel bag so there was there was testimony from his mother that he had more well there was there was testimony from his mother that he was living at the residence at the time of the house but there was no testimony about that he had anything specifically in the house and went now let's jump very briefly to the photographs my recollection of the wreckage in this case  of the search and the defendant could not identify one item in any of the photographs that belonged to the defendant and was present at the time of the search so it was the government's position that these photographs were irrelevant we didn't deny that there was a bedroom we didn't deny that there was a garage and we didn't deny it was a three bedroom house we didn't deny that the family lived there our position was that the defendant was not living there for purposes legally living there for purposes of buying firearms he was you know he came to arizona to buy guns so ok simply staying in his mother's house overnight but he's not living there it's not a legal residence for her jean it's purchasing fire from the photograph of the closet it's filled with men and women's clothing were going through the proffer fence counsel can you identify one item in this closet that that was the defendant owned by the defendants and was in this closet at the time of the original search you know and then when you look at the photograph in the bedroom when the when the officers searched the room they were called only one bed fans and it's mother so there was three but it was it was it wasn't disputed that at the time of the search there was only one duffel bag with the defendant's clothing some toiletries and that the defendant proffers the photograph with numerous cute little stuffed animals in the same photograph that was the government's position these are these are things are completely irrelevant things that could drop sympathy from the jury on behalf of the defendant same thing in the photograph  screening history well you know the criminal it's criminal history the stipulation was that he had he had no felony convictions he had no misdemeanor convictions and he had no criminal history that would prevent him from either possessing firearms or purchasing firearms and there was testimony that not once not twice not three not four not not three but four times there was a criminal history background check before he purchased the guns and every single time he purchased  background check so with respect to the the argument that the defendant raised in his brief about the fact that there was some very brief and confusing testimony about the possibility of criminal history in the case i think the government bent over backwards to try to clear that up i don't understand the relevance of putting in the failure to report the theft well i believe it's relevant i believe it was relevant you know because they were for a number of reasons  one to address the credibility of the defendant in other words the defendant was saying that he lived in arizona well we also stayed in testifying for a trial that all but but initially when he was pulled over and that testimony was offered he when he  was pulled over eventually said he lived in arizona he lived in his mother's house and then obviously every time he filled out of the forms the four times he filled out the forms he made a representation on those forms i'm a resident of arizona i into this that he's a person what is it what is the natural course of conduct to someone who spends a lot of money for guns in this case ten guns says that you know he said well there were only about five but we knew that there were ten because we had the records that he previously purchased ten guns spends a lot of money on guns says all they're stored in my mother's house twelve shown to us let's go check this out you say you're a collector let's show you your collection you go there they're not there ok officer says well you know you should report you should report they just don't you know it's important that they're reported stolen because that can impact how the guns are traced later on but besides that so he never reports them stolen so what's the inference theory i think because this conduct was contemporaneous with the actual purchase in other words this was a statement that he made on the date of the fourth purchase and it was clearly related to  conduct in relation to these guns in other words it wasn't a statement related it wasn't a false statement that he made in relation to anything else and so the government's position is that this was a statement that was made directly in relation to  the straw man purchases that well you aren't but then we look at we look at what is what is this kind of this conduct is all contemporaneous it's intertwined and it directly relates to the guns were as we look at  briefcase out to a pickup truck and then the pickup truck and then when he's brought out of the pickup truck after stop a gun that was supposedly between his legs falls down on the ground he is charged with felony possession of firearms and that case the ninth circuit allowed the government to get into the contents of the briefcase and what were the contents of the briefcase a drug ledger methamphetamine a scale and a significant amount of cash now the inference there was obviously people who are drug traffick firearms in order to protect their drugs and that is obviously an extremely prejudicial testimony the defendant was charged in that case was simply found in possession of a firearm the government was allowed to bring in very significant prejudicial information regarding him being a pretty active methamphetamine trafficker whereas in this case what is the government trying to show here in the government is trying to show that people in california  only buy one gun one handgun a month and if they buy the handgun it's got to be registered with the state in arizona of those two so they lost there is no comparable state law so there is a motive for california resident to drive this three or four hours to a border community in arizona buy a bunch of guns and take them back and sell them it's in the government's way of thinking that there's that's the same type of rationale if it's if it's reasonable for a jury to infer that people who are involved in drug trafficking possess firearms it's reasonable for the government to argue that people who live in california and have an economic incentive to buy guns in california in arizona and then come back and sell them in arizona it's the same type of conduct and i would posit on one level depending upon what the guns are being used for it's more prejudicial to be selling methamphetamine it is to be selling firearms but obviously depending upon where the farm clarify the issue on the photographs there was some discussion in regards to the closet whether there were any clothes in there that we could identify as his but in regard to the a photo of the bedroom three pads that reason it was so important for us to put that evidence then was that the government agents had all testified before that that there was only one bed in that room and that no one appeared to occupy that room the reason the stuffed animals were relevant that's because that was our position that the defendant and his two little sisters were in that room and in fact still the sister still resided in that room at the time the pictures were taken which was why there were stuffed animals and bikes and that sort of numbers of the firearms the fact that he did not then call and make a report after he'd been questioned and accused of things by officers is not probative of anything and in fact judge karen commented on that even though he ruled against us and in this case on that issue and there's no evidence that defendant knew of this the law that said that you that that california resident cannot purchase firearms there is no evidence there are none of the questioning that was in regard to that and i think it's very important in regard to all of this to to know that there was substantial evidence showing his ties to arizona true he got a traffic ticket during this time period in california but there was also evidence presented to the jury that he got a traffic ticket and blake happened to area are bullhead city just a couple months before in september of two thousand and four and they said first occurred in january of two thousand and five there was evidence that he had a child with a woman that lived in bullhead city in arizona he had substantial ties to arizona there was no doubt of that and all of the witnesses presented by the defense clearly testified that he moved out in may of two thousand and five also it's not as if he never even had his own place he was living first in california with his aunt and then he moved out to arizona and lived with his parents and then he moved back and was living with his aunt so this was someone that went between two states so all of the evidence needs to be viewed in light of the fact that this was not a strong case for the government on the issue of residence they appeared to have more evidence regarding the straw purchase we needed to admit and that evidence was that minute that was very prejudicial to the defendant thank you thank you both for your argument the case just argued to be submitted to a decision