so there's a theoretical possibility of that given however the government's closing arguments correctly focusing people on the car the jury on the car and the gun i'm sorry the gun in the car that the that this or in terms of valuating prejudice correct let me explain why the district court told the jurors as we know that for a jury the word of this record is as if it's from the word of god it is what they have to fall no matter what the court told the jury that you have to follow my instructions no matter what even if you disagree with the court then proceeded to mischaracterize what the intelligence said the court said that the indictment charged pearson with possessing a firearm so no matter even though the  the same breath the government told the jury that this is the same type same model very similar to the gun found in the kitchen which is which pierson wasn't very surprised to see  i think we it's pretty clear what the government was doing here the government had to charge these firearms they had to imperfect candidates they had one crime with them in the kitchen which had a very close connection to drug trafficking but it had someone else's fingerprints on it then they had another guy or a gun found in the car which had some evidence of drug trafficking but much much weaker tenuous evidence of drug trafficking but it was clean so what the government did was they charged and then they said looking man who gets in the car from and if you have some text messages saying that pierson traveled in some car at some point you brought a bag inside from the car correct drugs were found in the bag and those were left with his sticker straight and that was like a pretty decent connection to drug trafficking it's a can it is a connection but at the same time if you remember george hamilton the court instructed the jury the mere presence of the firearm at the crime scene is not enough and i want to make this very clear we are not looking at what the evidence was sufficient if we were still proved insufficient evidence the government stuff i mean this case is over it has to be a different standard and i think come up with if you look at the court elements are in a copy of the indictment goes back to the jury and the jury is able to see what is the firearm the person i spar that we're talking about given that given the clear that the government focused on agent said i looked at you got it and the testimony was well what did you do with those two guns because there were two guns and evidence and the reason that there were two guns in evidence is twofold one is it was found among this area and there was a number of tools of the drug trade there and there was testimony a list of that about the pretty detail to spray but each of those tools counterweights baggies masks the gun was one of those tools so was part of the government's case in chief as to you intended to kill the intention stricter it was also brought up because it was clear that the defense in the case was what's the government not telling you what is the government hiding from you in fact in closing argument repeatedly were fifty six did the government close all the doors pays for sixty what did the government not tell you what has not been discussed so knowing that is where they would go and we do have a gun without a  the fingerprint of not the defendant that was a focus and so it was brought up to explain the government's investigation to not allow the defense for the very first time across to say why didn't you do that for this gun why didn't you look at that for this  more extensive discussion of the jury instructions with trial counsel for the defense or was it pretty much just we're given the patterns and that's it we had instructions conference with the judge which i think is on the record and it's it's in the that was the discussion about appeal or i can't recall if there were some discussions i'm thinking back to it's instructive conference there were some discussions about whether certain things were needed but i think in the end everyone  ed that there was not a situation where the defense made an objection in the judge fingerprints on it and it has stood the juries now confused as to which one is really going on here and i kind of i've got to say though the prosecution makes a decent point about basically saying we want to we want to blunt arguments to the effect that we are holding back evidence from the jury which at least in my experience in the trial court was a very very common tactic in cases in which there really isn't much of a difference on the merits of course i mean that it doesn't change the fact that what could have happened to the jury it doesn't change the fact it might not have been by design of the government to confuse the jury but it doesn't change the fact that the jury very well could have been confused the verdict form i mean if you take a look at them over if you take a look at the