## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 1515 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D EN NIS J A MI S ON, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on. No . 3:09- CR-00054

—Robert L . M il ler , Jr ., Judge .
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 3, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 18, 2011

Befo re F LA UM, R OV NER, a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . Dennis J am i son ( “J am i son”) w as co n vic te d of p os s e s sin g a sa w ed -off s h ot gu n, in vio lat ion of 26 U .S.C . §§ 5 86 1(d ) a n d 58 45 (a). D u rin g h is tr i al, the dist ri ct c ourtper m i tte d the g ove rnm ent t o el i ci t t estim on y fro m J am i son’ s wife, M i chael lJ am i son ( “Mrs
. J ami s o n” ) , o n c r o ss - ex ami na ti o n r eg ar di ng J ami so n’ s ag g r es si ve ne ss . J ami so n appe al s hi s co nv i ct i o n, ar guing tha t the questi on a nd M rs . Jam i son’ s r esponse2 N o. 10

- 1515

w er e i rr el evant, unfai rl y prej ud i ci al, und u ly cum ula ti ve, an d l ac k ed f o unda ti o n. The g o ve r nm en t cl ai m s th atthe evi dence dem onst ra ted M rs. J am i son’ s bi as and m oti ve t o l i e . We a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und J am i son and his wife had a ser ies o f dom est i c di sputes d u rin g th e w ee k of F eb ru a r y 2 3, 20 09 . Jam iso n leftth eir shar ed re si dence on February 23 to sta y with hi s par ents. H e r etur ned on Februa ry 24 to pi ck up cl othe s a nd o ther ess enti al s, ta ki ng h is d oubl e-bar re l ed shot gun and a . 22 caliberhandgun, but l eaving the sa w ed-o ffsho tgun at i ssue i n this case ( “the shot gun”)
. S hor tl y a fterhe l eft, M rs . J am i son took the s hotgun to the s heri ff’ s depart

m ent an d turned i t in, sa yi ng tha t i t be l onge d to J am i son a n d th a ts h e d i d n o tw a n ti ti n h e rh o me . J a mi s o n c a me to the r esi dence ag ai n on F ebr uary25 to pi ck up m or e o f hi s th i ng s. Offi ce rTr av i s S hi ve l y was c al l ed to the scene. J am i son concedes i n br i efi ng tha t M rs . J am i son tol d Offi cerS hi vel y th at Jam i son w as ther e forthe shot

gun. A t som e pointd uri ng Offi cerS hi vel y’ s v i si t, J am i son i nd i cate d that the bar re lm ay have been too sho rt
. On M ar ch 10, 2009 , Feder al A gents with the A TF Proj ect Di sa r m T ask Fo r ce , J ames De anVa nc e an d Ba y ne B en ne tt, arrived at Jam iso n ’s pa rent s’ hom e, w he re J ami so n was a t th e ti m e, t o i nt er view h im ab o utthe shot gun. Duri ng the i nter vi ew , J am i son adm i tte d that he pu rch ased the sh otgu n eight een or n in eteen years pri orfro m a pri vate i nd i vi du alata gun show i n I nd i ana. A f ai r re ad in g of the r eco rd i nd i cate s that he adm i tte dN o. 10

- 1515 3 that he kne w the shot gun w as ill ega lwh en he pu rchas ed i t be ca us e i t was to o sh o r t an d al so th at he fi red the shot gun at hi s par ents’ pro perty
. Tit l e 2 6, Secti on 5 861( d) pr ohibi ts posse ssing an unregi st e r e d “ fi r e a r m. ” “ F i r e a r m” inc l ud e s “ a we a po n mad e fro m a shot gun i fs u c h w eapon a s m odi fi ed has a n ov e r a l l len gt h of les s t h an 26 inc h es or a ba rre l or b ar re ls o fl es s th an1 8 inch es i n l en g th

. ” 26 U. S
. C. § 5 84 5( a)
. The fi re ar m atis su e w as m ade fro m a shot gun. I t i s o nl y 1 4 and 1/2 i nches l ong and i ts bar re l8 an d 1/16 i nches l o ng . J ami so n n ev err eg i st er ed th e sh o tgun. J ami so n was i ndi ct ed o n May 14, 2 00 9, o n o ne c o unt ofposs ess i ng an unregi ste re d fi re ar m , i n vi ol ati on o f26 U
. S. C. §§ 5861 ( d) a nd 58 45( a)
. H e was al so i nd ict ed f or bei ng an unlawfulusero fa contr ol l ed s u b st ance in possession of a fir e a r m , i n violation of 18 U
. S. C
. § 922(g)( 3), b u t t h is c ou n t w as d ism iss ed atth e b eg in n in g of t ria l. J am i son had a two- day j ury tr i al

. The go ver nm ent’ s ca sei n-c hi ef i ncl ud ed te st im on y fro m n in e w itness es. Am o ng the m , Offi ce rDa vi d Cur ti s te st i fi ed ab o ut M rs . J a mi s o n’ s v i s i tt o the p o l i c e s t a t i o n o n F e b r ua r y 2 4, 20 09 . Th e g ov er n m en t int ro d u c ed th e s h ot gu n int o e vidence thr ou gh Offi cerCurti s. J am i son’ s par ents tes ti fi ed ab o utthe o cca si o n o n whi chJ ami so n fi r ed th e sh o tgun at thei r hom e. Offi cerS hi vel y di scusse d his Februar y 2 5 vi si t to J ami so n’ s r es i den ce . F ina l l y, Age nt s Vance an d Bennett t est i fi ed abo ut thei r M ar ch 10 i nter vi ew with J ami so n. J ami so n c al l ed M r s. J ami so n a s hi s fi r stwi tn es s. S he tes ti fi ed that she turned the shot gun i nto pol i ce on Feb-4 N o. 10

- 1515

r ua r y 2 4. S he a l so c l ai m ed, a m o ngother th i ng s, tha t sh e i nheri ted the sho tgun fro m hergr andfather i n the 19 80s an d tha t i t be l o ng ed to he r, no t J ami so n. O n cr oss - exam i nati on, the gov er nm ent e stabl i shed th a t th e c o u p l e h a d b e e n s e p a r a t e d i n F e b r u a r y a nd M arch 200 9, bu t tha t the y had since recon cil ed and w ere l i vi ng to gether at the t i m e o fthe tr i al. M rs. J am i son tes ti fi ed that she pr ovi ded a sw or n, ta ped state m en t t o l aw enf or cem ent o ffi cer s o n Feb ruar y 2 6, 20 09. The go vernm en t pl ay ed p orti o ns o fhe rs ta te m en t att r i alde m o nstr ating tha t s he to l d pol i ce that the sho tgun belon ged to J am i son. S he al so tes ti fi ed t h at s he to l d l aw enf or cem ent that J am i son own ed the shot gun on M ar ch 10, 20 09. The go ver nm en t aske d w hetherM rs . J am i son had pr ev i o us l y t o l d the po l i ce tha t J ami son “ ra i se d hi s ha nd to y o u t o i nt i m i dat e y o u. ” S he a dm i tt ed m ak i ngthe sta tem ent a nd sa i d that he r h u sb an d w as “an a ggr ess i ve p er so n,” b u t c laim ed th at Jam iso n h ad n ev er ac tu ally r ai se d hi s ha nd to h er a nd tha t he rc o nt r ary s ta te m en t to pol i ce w as a li e. The go ver nm ent then ask ed the question thatl ea d t o thi s appe al : “ Cou l d y o u t el lus why you think th at .
. . J am iso n is aggressive? ” Jam ison’s co unse lo bj ec te d. The g o ve r nm en t ar g ue d, a nd the dist ri ct c ourtag re ed, t h at the questi on was r el evantto prove bi as and a m oti ve to l i e. M rs . J am iso n answered by cl ai m i ng tha t herbel i efwas “j ust ba sed o n a know ledge ofa perso n’s charact er, ” no t o n any speci fi c inci dents. Jam iso n w as co n vic te d an d se n te n c ed to th i r t y - six m onths ofi m pri sonm ent a nd two ye ar s o fsuperv i sed re lea se . On appeal, he a rgues that the di str i ct c ourter re dN o. 10

- 1515 5 i n pe r m i tt i ngthe g o ve r nm en t to a skM r s. J ami so n abo ut her opi ni on that J am i son w as agg re ssi ve.

II . A n alysis A. Mr s . J a mi s o n’ s T e s t i mo ny Jam iso n ap p ea ls th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isio n to p er m it th e g o ve r nm en t to c r o ss - ex ami ne M r s. J ami so n abo ut whys he tho ughtJ a mi s o n wa s a g g r e s s i v e . We c o nc l ud e th at th e d istri ct cou rt did not err. T h e F ed er al R u les of E vid e n c e p ro vid e t h at “[a ]ll re l e v a nte v i de nc e i s a dmi s s ib l e , ” a nd tha t“ [ e ] v i de nc e w hi ch i s not re l evant i s no t a dm i ssibl e. ” F ED . R. E V ID . 40 2. The y de fi ne “ re l ev an t ev i den ce ” as “ ev i den ce ha vinga ny tendency t o m ake the exi ste nce o fany f act th at is of con seq ue nc e to the d eterm ination of the a c t ion m ore pr o babl e o r l es s pr o babl e th an i t woul d be wi th o ut the evi dence. ” F ED . R. E V ID . 40 1. Evi dence r eveal i ng a w itn es s’s bia s o r m ot ive to lie is r e l ev an t a n d ge n er ally ad m iss ible u n d er R u le 4 02
. Se e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. A bel , 469 U
. S. 45 , 52 ( 1984 ) ( “Bias m ay b e ind uced by a witne ss’ l ike, disli ke, or fear of a p arty, or by th e w itness ’ sel fi nter est
. Pro ofo fbi as i s a l m ostal w ays rel evantbec ause the j ury, as fi nd ero ff act and w ei gher o fcr edibi l i ty, has hi stori cal l y b een e nti tl ed to as ses s a l lev i dence w hi ch m i ght b earo n the accura cy and truth ofa w i tness ’ tes tim ony. ”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thom ps on , 35 9 F
. 3d 470, 475- 48 0 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ans ke, 186 F
. 3d 770, 77 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)
. W e re vi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o6 N o. 10

- 1515

T h e g o v e r n m e n t a r g u e s t h a tw e sh o u l d r e v i e w Ja m i so n ’s 1 R ule 403 argum ent f or plai n err or because he f ail ed to objec t on R ule 403 g ro u nd s at t ri al. J am is on cl aim s thathe did ob j ect on R u le 40 3 g ro u nd s a t t r ial. Since Jam ison ’ s arg u m en ts f ail u nd er eith er stan d ard , w e d ecline to reso lv e the d isag reem en t. admi t ev i den ce f o rabus e o fdi sc r et i o n. U ni ted Sta t e s v. 1 Ani f owos he, 307 F.3d 643 , 649 (7th C ir. 2002). T h e qu e s t i o n a ti s su e

— re gar ding w hy M rs . J am i son thought J am i son w as agg re ssiv e

— w as proba ti ve of M rs . J am i so n ’s bi as. The di str i ct c ourtdi d not abuse its d isc re tio n in p er m itt in g it. Se eThom ps on , 35 9 F
. 3d at 47 9 (“ Q u es tio n in g a w itn es s’ m ot ive s fo r te st ifyin g is p r e c i s e l y th e t y p e o f i n q u i r y p e r mi s s ib l e o n c r o s s - e x a mi nati on. The di str i ct c ourtdi d n ot a buse i ts bro ad dis cre ti o n in c o nc l udi ng tha t th e ev i den ce o fthr ea ts a nd re cent vi ol ence w er e proba ti ve ofS hi nnam on’ s cr edibi l i ty an d b i as . W h en ad m itt ed on cr os s-e x am in at ion, th is ev i den ce o fr ecent thr ea ts a nd v i o l en ce was r el ev an t and probat i ve to dem onst ra te th at S hi nnam on, a w i tness who ch an g ed he rpr et r i alt es ti m o ny, was b i as ed an d th er efo r e l i k ely t o s l an t o re ve n f ab r icate hert es ti m o ny in the de fend an t’s f avor.”). Jam iso n ap p ea ls u n d er R u le 4 03 , arg u in g th at m er ely as k i ngthe que st i o n a t issue pr ej udi ce d hi m . Hi s ar g um en t l acks m er i t. M r s. J ami so n’ s te st i m o ny abo ut w hether she or J am i son own ed the shot gun contradict ed herpre - tr i alst ate m ents. The thr eatev i dence w as re l evantto hercr edibi l i ty and offer ed a pot enti al ex p lan at ion for h er inc on sis te n t s t a t em en ts
. See id
. at 477-N o. 10

- 1515 7 79. Itm ay have prej ud i ced Jam i son to som e extent, but not u n f ai r l y so . See F ED . R. E V ID . 403 ; Thom ps on , 35 9 F
. 3d at 479 ( “Evi dence is u nfa i rl y pr ej ud i ci ali fi t a pp eal s t o th e j u r y ’s sym p ath ies, arouse s its sense of horror, prov o k e s i t s i ns t i nc tt o p un i s h, o ro the r wi s e ma y c ause a j ur y t o b as e its d ecisi o n o n s o m ethi ngo th ertha n the e s t ab l i s he d p r o po s i t i o ns i n the c a s e . ” ( qu o t i ng U n i ted Sta tes v. P eters , 791 F.2d 1 2 70 , 129 4 (7 th C ir. 19 86 ), sup erseded by sta tute o n o ther g rou nd s as st a t e d in U nited Sta tes v. G uerrero , 894 F.2d 261 , 267 (7th C ir. 1990)). J am i son al so ar gues that w e s houl d vacat e hi s co nvi cti o n b as ed o n o uro p inio n in D udley v. D uckw orth , 85 4 F
. 2d 96 7 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 8)
. In D ud ley, we h eld t h at the gov er nm ent’ s e licitati on o fthr eatev i dence fro m a w i tness on d ire ct e xam i nati on was so prej ud i ci althati ts adm i ss i o n v i o l a t e d the de fe nd a nt ’ s c o ns t i t ut i o na lr i ght to a fair tria l. Id. at9 72
. W e su g g es te d t ha t th e g o ve r nm en t el i ci te d the thr ea t ev i den ce a s pr et ex t, i nt en di ng“ m ore to prej ud i ce the defendants .

. . than to expla i n away any ne rv ousness o f the w i tness
. ” Id. J ami so n’ s ar g um en t i s unpers uasi ve. W e f i nd m o r e s i mi l a r i t i e s b e t we e n thi s c a s e a nd Thom ps on , i n whi c h w e d i s t i ngui s he d D ud ley. 359 F. 3d at 476 n. 7, 4 77
. In Thom ps on , the defe nd ant’ s rom anti c par tner m ade in c onsi ste nt st ate m ents

— o ne i n a n ini ti almeet i ng w i th pol i ce bef or e tr i al, the othe r at tr i al

— ab o utthe de fen d an t’s ow n er sh ip of am m u n itio n . Id. at 473-74. On cr oss ex ami na ti o n, the di st r i ctc our t per m i tt ed th e g o ve r nm ent t o el i ci t t est i m ony that the defen d an t threa tened an d p h ys ica lly ab u se d th e w itn es s. Id
. at 474. M oving f or8 N o. 10

- 1515

a new tri al, the d efend an t argu ed that the d istri ct cou rt er re d by p er m itt in g th e t h re at ev id en c e. Id. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed the m oti on, fi nd i ng the evi dence pro bati ve ofthe w i tness ’ s bi as and cre dib ility and thati t potenti al l y e xplained the witness’ s inconsi ste nt st ate
m en ts
. Id. a t 47 4-7 5. W e a ffirm ed an d h eld th at th e e vidence w as r el evantto pro ve bi as and a m oti ve to l i e, an d th at it w as n otu n d u ly p rej u d icia l. Id. a t 4 77 -80 . In re achi ng o ur ho l ding, we dist i ngui shed el i ci ti ng thr eat ev i dence o n di r ec t ex ami na ti o n, a s was do ne i n D ud ley, fro m elic itin g it o n cr os s-e x a m in at ion, w h ich oc c u rre d in Jam iso n ’s t ria l: Evi de nc e o fthr e a t s o n di r e c te xa mi na t i o n, a dmi t t ed ev en th ou gh th e w itn es s s h ow s n o in d ica tio n of in tim idati on, i s no t o n ly of extre m el y weak proba ti ve val ue, but it als o coul d consti tute a prej ud i ci alat tack on th e o p p os in g p ar ty . Su c h ev id en c e c an be h igh ly p rej u d icia l. The si tu ati on i s v er y di ffer ent when the purpose o f i ntro d u c i ng ev i dence ofa thre at i s t o dem onst ra te bi as o n the c r o ss- exami na ti o n o fa wi tn es s. In s ucha conte xt, the proba ti ve val ue o fsuch e vi denc e is fa r m o r e ev i den t. For ins ta nc e, e vi den ce o fb i as , i nc lu d in g e vid en c e o f a th re at, to c h alle n ge th e c re d ibi l i tyo fa wi tn es s who ha s m ade a n inc o ns i st en t st at ement sim pl y do es no t r ai se the s ame c o nc erns as evid en ce o f a threa t offered , i n th e absen ce of a tes ti m oni ali nconsi ste ncy, si m plyto “bo ost ” a witnes s’ te st im on y. Id. at 476- 77.N o. 10

- 1515 9 S i m i l art o the wi tn es s i n Thom ps on , Mr s . J a mi s o n mad e c ontr adic tory s tat em ents

— o ne b e f o r e t r i a l, the o ther du ring tr i al

— re gar ding w hether she orJ am i son own ed th e gun . In li gh t of Thom ps on , the dis tr i ct c ourtdi d not ab us e i t s di s c r e t i o n b y pe r mi t t i ng the g o v e r nme nt to ask M rs . J am i son w hy she tho ught J am i son w as agg re ssive. See id
. at 475- 80. N ext, J am i son a rg u es that the threa t e vi dence w as u n d u ly c u m u lat ive be c au se th e g ov er n m en t p re vio u sly establ i shed M rs . J am i son’ s bi as and m oti ve to l i e when it elici ted te sti m ony that she a nd J am i son w er e m ar ri ed and l ivin g to gether at the t i m e o fthe tr i al

. J am i son ci tes no r el ev an t l eg ala utho r i tyt o s uppo r t hi s ar g um en t. To the e xt en t th athe i s r ely i ngo n Ru l e 40 3, hi s ar g um en t i s unpers uasi ve. A s di scusse d abov e, the evi dence w as p robati ve; i t dem onst ra ted thatM rs . J am i son m ay have b ee n m ot iva te d to lie. Se eAbel , 4 69 U
. S. at52 ; Thom ps on , 35 9 F
. 3d at4 78 n. 13 , 4 79
. J ami so n s i m pl y f ai l s to de m o nst r at e tha t t he pr o ba ti ve v alue o fthe e vi den ce a t i ss ue w as “subst anti al l y o utw eig hed by the .

. . needl ess pre senta ti on o fcum ula ti ve evi dence” and thatthe dist ri ct c ou rtab u se d its d isc re tio n in p er m i t tin g it. F ED . R. E V ID . 40 3. Fi nal l y, J am i son ar gues that the g ove rnm en t di d not l ay adequate foundati on t o askM rs . J am i son about her opi ni on that J am iso n w as agg re ssi ve because ther e was no evi den ce tha t he phy si ca l l y abus ed he rdur i ngthe wee ko fF ebrua r y 2 3, 2 00 9. W e di sa g r ee . The r e was undo ub t e dl y s uffi c i e ntf o un da t i o n: S he v o l un t a r i l y a dm i tt ed t h at J am i son w as “an a ggr ess i ve perso n” i n re -10 N o. 10

- 1515

Sh e al s o t es t i fi ed thathe r s t at em en tt o pol i c e w as a lie an d 2 att em pted to ex plain the dis cre pancy b y cl a im in g t hat s he w as offhe r m edica t i on f or depr es s i on and a nx i ety whens he spoke w ith polic e. B ut nei thers he nor J am is on est ablis hed that f ai l i ng t o t ake he r m edi c i ne i ndi c at ed thathe r s t at em en t to poli ce w as f als e and her t es ti m ony true. spo ns e to a n e ar l i erquestion b y the g o ve r nm en t, s he ackno w l edged that she m ade a sw or n sta tem en t to pol i c e tha tJ a mi s o n ha d r a i s e d h i s h a nd t o h e rto i nti m i date her, and she expla ined that she a nd J am i son 2 had b een m ar ri ed f or fi ftee n yea rs at the ti m e ofth e t ri al and th at they date d fo r ove r thre e y ear s be f or e m ar ry i ng. See F ED . R. E V ID . 60 2, 70 1. Further, we have “ expla i ned that ther e i s n o speci al f o unda ti o na lre qui r ementf o rb i as e vi den ce a nd the par t y a t t e mpt i ng t o de mon s t r a t e b i a s s ho ul d b e ab l e t o prove any f act l ogi c ally r el evantto bi as. ” Thom ps on , 35 9 F.3 d at47 8 n. 12 ( const rui ng M ans ke, 186 F. 3d at 779) . A party el i ci ti ng bi as evi dence base d o n fear need not “a sk expli ci tl y whether the witness w as ‘pres entl y a fra i d’ o r w hether the w i tness fel t ‘ press ured to tes ti fy a ce rt ain w ay. ’ ” Id. ( qu o t i ng M a ns ke, 18 6 F
. 3d at 779)
. W e hav e m entio ned that defe nd ants see ki ng to el i ci t s uch evi dence m ust inquir e into the “ w ho, wh at, wh y, wh er e, and w hen ofthe speci fi c incidents he cl ai m s g i ve ri se to bi as. ” Id. ( quoti ng M ans ke, 186 F.3d at 779 ). Bu t s uch que st i o ns wer e unne ce ss ary i n th i s si tu at i o n. Her e, the g o ve r nm en t as k ed m er ely why M rs. J ami so n tho ught J ami so n was a g g r es si ve . I t di d no t se ekt estim ony about speci fi c inci dents and M rs . J am i son did notN o. 10

- 1515 11 disc uss a ny. In re sponse, M rs . J am i son expla i ned that her belief w as “ba sed on a kn ow ledge of a p erson ’s chara cter” an d t h at J am i son had not physi cal l y har m ed herin an y way . The di st r i ct co ur t di d no t er r i n p er m i tt i ng th e g o ve r nm en t to e l i ci t te st i m o ny r eg ar di ngwhy M rs . J am i son thought J am i son w as agg re ssi ve.
B. Harmle ss Err or A ssum i ng ar guendo that the dist ri ct c ourter re d i n i ts ev id en tia ry ru lin g, th e e rro r w as h ar m les s. See F ED . R. C RIM . P . 52(a ); U nited Sta tes v. C o o per, 59 1 F .3d 58 2, 59 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 )
. T o c o nv i c tJ a mi s o n un de r2 6 U. S
. C. §§ 5861 ( d) a nd 5845( a) , the gov er nm ent ne eded to p ro ve th re e e lem en ts : (1 ) th at Jam iso n “c on sc iou sly posse sse d w hat he knew to b e a fi re ar m , ” U n i t e d S ta tes v. Sa nd ers , 5 20 F. 3d 69 9, 7 00 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( quo ting U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 222 F. 3d 349, 352 ( 7th C ir . 2 000)); (2) t h at h e “ w as aw ar e o f th e . . . feat u re s t h at br ou gh t h is gun w i thi n the re alm o fr egul ati on, ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. E dw ar ds , 90 F .3d 19 9, 20 5 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ); see also U nited Sta te s v. Sta ples , 511 U
. S. 600, 618-19 (1994 ); Sa nd ers , 52 0 F. 3d at 700 ( “[ T]he go ver nm ent had t o p ro ve that Sander s . . . knew that th e sh otgun had an ove ra l ll ength ofl ess than 26 i nches o r a barr ell ength ofl ess than 18 inc h es .”); Jo nes , 22 2 F
. 3d at 352; and (3) that the fi re ar m was unreg i ste re d, alth ou gh i t was notr equi re d to pr o v e tha tJ a mi s o n k ne w the fi r e a r m was u nr e g i st e r e d, see 26 U .S.C . § 58 61 (d ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fre ed, 40 1 U.S
. 60 1, 607- 09 ( 1971 ) ( hol ding that the gove rnm ent ne ed not p ro ve kn ow led ge th at a f i r ea rm is u n re gis te re d ); see also12 N o. 10

- 1515 Sta ples , 5 11 U. S
. a t 60 9 ( “In Freed, we deci ded o nl y that § 5 861 ( d) do e s no t r e qu i r e pr o o f o f k no wl e dg e tha t a fi re ar m i s unregi s t ered .” ) ; Edwards , 90 F. 3d at 202 ( discussi ng Freed ). The g o ve r nm en t i ndi spu tabl y e st ab l i sh ed th e fi r sta nd th i r d e l ement s. J ami so n c o nc ede s i n b r i efi ngtha t th e e v i d e n c e e s t ab l i s h e d th a th e p o s s e s s e d t h e fi r e a r m. A l so, undisputed evi dence de m onst ra ted thatthe shot

g unwa s n e v e rr e g i s t e r e d. Jam ison argu es th at th e gove r nm en t fai led to su ffi ci entl y pr ove the seco nd el em en t t o re nd erthe al l ege d er r o rha r m l es s. Thi s ar g um en t i s m er i tl es s: The g o ve r nm en t pr o ve d the second e l ementwi tho ve r whel m i ng evi dence. Fi rs t, A gents Van c e a nd Bennett tes ti fi ed that J ami so n a d mi t t e d t o th e m o n Ma r c h 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 , th a the kn ew th e s h ot gu n w a s i l l eg al w h en h e p u rc h as ed it be ca us e i t was t o o short. S ec o nd, Offi ce rS hi ve l y a nd M rs . Jam iso n te st ified th at Jam iso n to l d O ffice r Sh ive ly on F ebru ary 2 5 that the bar re lm i ght b e t oo sho rt
. Fin ally , th e s h ot gu n an d its ba rre l w er e s ig n i f i c an tly shor terthan § 5 845( a) per m i ts: W hi l e § 58 45( a) pro hibi ts a sh o tgun fr o m b eings ho r te rthan 26 i nc he s l o nga nd i ts bar r e lfr o m b e i n gs h o r t e rth a n 1 8 i n c h e s l o n g, the sh o tgun wa s m er ely 1 4 an d 1/2 i nc he s l o nga nd the bar re lo nl y 8 a n d 1/ 16 i nches l ong. The f act that a shot gun ori ts bar re lar e obvi ousl y t oo sho rti s “ not a su bs ti tu te ” f o rpr o vingtha t J ami so n knew the s ho tgun ha d c ha r ac te r i st i cs tha t su bj ec te d i t to r eg i st r ati o n, Edwards , 9 0 F
. 3d at 205, b ut i t i s “amean s o fpr o ving knowle dge, ” i d. , and w e hav e ex pla i ned that, co up l edN o. 10

- 1515 13

w ith ev id en c e t h at th e d e f en d an t h an d led th e g u n, a shot gun orbar re lthati s obvi ousl y t oo sho rtper m i ts an i nfe re nce tha t the defendant knew ofi ts features that su bj ec te d it to th e s ta tu te , see Sa nd ers , 52 0 F
. 3d at 700- 01 ( fi ndi ngtha t t he j ur y c o ul d ha ve i nfer r ed th e re quis i te kn owledge bec ause ther e was ev i dence that th e d e fe n d an t po ssess ed the fir earm and the fir earm ’s b ar re l w as o n l y 1 1 a n d 7/1 6 in c h es lon g, sig n ifica n tly sh orter tha n th e 18-inch m inim um l en gth ). J am i son m ake s tw o fi nalar gum ents, bo th unpersuas i ve. First, he points o ut thathe t est i fi ed that som e peo p le to ld h im th at th e g u n w as an tiq u e, an d , th u s, n otillega l. Buthi s admi ss i o ns t o Age ntVa nc e, Age ntBe nne tt, a nd Offi cer S hi ve l y, i n a ddi ti o n t o the f ac t th atthe s ho tgun and i ts bar re l w er e si gni fi cantl y shor ter than § 5485( a) per m i ts , de m o ns trat e th atthe j ur y woul d ha ve c o nv i c t e d J a mi s o n wi th o u tth e c h a l l e n g e d e v i d e n ce . He also clai m s tha t he n e v e r tol d l aw enforcem en t officers that he kne w the shot gun needed to be re gi ste re d. Bu t a co nv i ct i o n r equi r es pr o vingtha t Jam i so n kne w ofthe ch a rac teristics that subj ecte d the fi re ar m to t h e r egi str ati o n r equi r ement

— i.e
. , thatthe shot gun w as shor terthan 26 i nches or that i ts bar re lwas shor terthan 18 i nches

— not that he kne w the fire ar m m ust a ctual l y b e re gi ste re d because of 26 U
. S. C. §§ 5861 ( d) and 58 45( a)

— i.e
. , notthathe ha d knowledge of the s tatute a t i ssue or i ts speci fi c pro hibi ti ons. See St a ples , 51 1 U.S
. at61 9; Sa n d ers , 520 F.3d at70 0; Jo nes , 222 F.3d at35 2; Edwards , 90 F. 3d at 201- 02, 20 4- 05. Ac co r di ng l y, e ve n i fthe d ist ric t c ou rterr ed by ad m itt in g M rs . J a m i so n ’s t es tim ony, the er ro r w as harm l ess .14 N o. 10

- 1515 I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM the j ud gm en t of the di str i ct c ourt
.

3- 18- 11