[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Here on our Florence Bremmer on behalf of Mr. Delgado, may it please the court, Mr. Russell.

[00:00:08] Speaker 01:
As the court knows, the defendant was convicted of one count of engaging in the business of dealing

[00:00:17] Speaker 01:
firearms without a license.

[00:00:19] Speaker 01:
There were three other counts.

[00:00:20] Speaker 01:
They were dismissed, not before the court.

[00:00:23] Speaker 01:
There was a jury trial.

[00:00:24] Speaker 01:
The defendant was found guilty, sentenced to 36 months.

[00:00:28] Speaker 01:
At this time, he is at RRM in Phoenix, which is a residential reentry management program.

[00:00:35] Speaker 01:
There were some facts before the trial court regarding my client, just a bit of background.

[00:00:42] Speaker 01:
He runs a computer business.

[00:00:45] Speaker 01:
He had never been in any trouble before.

[00:00:47] Speaker 01:
had a girlfriend in Mexico, later became his wife, also has a child with her.

[00:00:53] Speaker 01:
He did not buy any guns in a gun show.

[00:00:56] Speaker 01:
They were purchased openly and there was no warning by the ATF for him to not be selling these.

[00:01:07] Speaker 01:
He was arrested

[00:01:10] Speaker 01:
outside of a firearm store while the firearms were still inside.

[00:01:14] Speaker 01:
And after the arrest, on the steps of the courthouse, he received Miranda warnings the following day.

[00:01:26] Speaker 01:
Throughout the brief, the government says over and over again, none of these mistakes matter.

[00:01:34] Speaker 01:
There's several issues in the case.

[00:01:36] Speaker 01:
And the government says, it doesn't matter.

[00:01:37] Speaker 01:
The evidence is overwhelming.

[00:01:41] Speaker 01:
There was an argument that he bought or attempted to buy 40 firearms, spent $85,000, possibly purchased multiples of the same gun.

[00:01:52] Speaker 01:
And the question, I think, is why would this evidence be overwhelming?

[00:02:01] Speaker 01:
Maybe it's circumstantial.

[00:02:03] Speaker 01:
Maybe you can take this and say, hey, there's some arguments about it.

[00:02:08] Speaker 01:
But to call it overwhelming and to say, well, now he's not entitled to reversal, I think is not correct.

[00:02:17] Speaker 03:
Does it have to be overwhelming?

[00:02:20] Speaker 01:
No, it doesn't have to be.

[00:02:22] Speaker 01:
It doesn't have to be.

[00:02:23] Speaker 01:
But in, I think, at least three of them.

[00:02:26] Speaker 03:
We stand convicted.

[00:02:28] Speaker 03:
And the case law tells us that we

[00:02:32] Speaker 03:
view the facts in the light most favorable to the government who prevailed at trial.

[00:02:37] Speaker 03:
So that, to me, that pretty much leaps over overwhelming, lack of overwhelming.

[00:02:43] Speaker 01:
Yeah, and Your Honor, that is a hurdle that the appellant always has to cross.

[00:02:49] Speaker 01:
And if that's it, and that's a line in the sand, nobody ever wins on appeal.

[00:02:55] Speaker 01:
But for the government to say, hey, don't really look at these issues, the evidence was overwhelming, I think if the court looks at the case, and I know the court will, we've done a lot of these, and I know how carefully the court looks at them,

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
It's not overwhelming.

[00:03:14] Speaker 03:
It wasn't like... Why don't we focus on what you think your client, the errors in the case at trial that affected your client's rights?

[00:03:28] Speaker 01:
I'm going to start kind of in the middle of the brief, because to me, this was one that really was kind of sticking in my craw as I was preparing for this.

[00:03:36] Speaker 01:
And this was when the defense counsel moved for mistrial

[00:03:42] Speaker 01:
due to the government shifting the burden.

[00:03:45] Speaker 01:
And Agent Bort had testified and was asked about videos, photos, bills of sale.

[00:03:53] Speaker 01:
And he said, well, the defendant didn't give us videos, didn't give us photos, didn't give us bills of sales.

[00:03:59] Speaker 01:
He said the bills of sales were vacuumed up.

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
The government says, well, there's a curative instruction, so it's fine.

[00:04:07] Speaker 01:
And the evidence was overwhelming, so it's fine.

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
But it's not fine.

[00:04:13] Speaker 01:
If the evidence is supposed to be overwhelming, why is this testimony even being brought in?

[00:04:19] Speaker 01:
And once the jury hears it, how do you unring the bell?

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
How do you unscramble the aids?

[00:04:25] Speaker 02:
But isn't that the presumption of our instructions?

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
Immediately after the answer, the district court gave a curative instruction, and then there was a break, and then when the trial resumed, the district judge instructed the jurors not to consider that testimony.

[00:04:43] Speaker 02:
And then there were instructions again at closing about the burden of proof, right?

[00:04:47] Speaker 02:
So this was said to the jurors multiple times.

[00:04:50] Speaker 02:
And that's how our system sort of works.

[00:04:53] Speaker 02:
And then we assume that the jurors follow the instructions that they're given.

[00:04:57] Speaker 02:
So why is it that here we should assume that's not the case and the jurors did not follow those instructions and instead placed the burden on Mr. Delgado?

[00:05:06] Speaker 01:
Sure, Your Honor.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
So in this case, the instruction we believe was not adequate.

[00:05:15] Speaker 01:
Basically told the jury that the defendant does not have the burden approved.

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
that the government has the burden of proof.

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
But putting the phrases, bills of sale, into the head of the jury was a catch-22 for the defendant.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
Because with that question, I sort of

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
thought of it as along the lines of when did you stop beating your wife?

[00:05:44] Speaker 01:
It doesn't matter what the answer is.

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
When bills of sale are put into the jury's head, it

[00:05:52] Speaker 01:
indicates that there is business going on, which is what the government has to prove.

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
But didn't your client say to the agent that he was reselling the firearms?

[00:06:03] Speaker 02:
He was purchasing multiples of the same firearm, up to 40 firearms, and then selling them, but there were also bank records that showed money coming in when the firearms went out.

[00:06:15] Speaker 02:
They had evidence.

[00:06:17] Speaker 02:
I don't know if they were suggesting he was going to buy a pad of invoices and write out invoices for people.

[00:06:24] Speaker 02:
So I guess I'm not understanding why that's so damning that when the district judge tells the jurors not only to disregard that, that the government has the burden to prove, and that they shouldn't consider it at all.

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
Well, for what the government, the government doesn't have to prove that the

[00:06:43] Speaker 01:
defendant ever sold a firearm has to prove that he's in the business of selling a firearm firearms and So when you say bills of sale, it's indicating that there is a business it it and then either answer that the Agent don't you think the number of firearms involved in the amount of money involved was more likely to influence the jurors verdict than the words bill of sale

[00:07:10] Speaker 01:
It's possible.

[00:07:11] Speaker 02:
I mean, 40 firearms, $85,000, multiples of one firearm.

[00:07:17] Speaker 01:
It's possible, and that's what the government argued.

[00:07:20] Speaker 01:
But then why throw in language?

[00:07:22] Speaker 01:
Why throw in this other stuff, like the bills of sale?

[00:07:27] Speaker 01:
If you really think all this is so overwhelming, why are you asking the agent if the defendant produced bills of sale?

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
The answer to that question is damning to the defendant no matter what.

[00:07:41] Speaker 01:
If the agent says, yes, he produced bills of sale, now, OK, is there a business?

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
Or if he says, no, he didn't produce bills of sale, then it's, oh, is he hiding his business?

[00:07:53] Speaker 01:
Why are we even talking about this?

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
If you're going to argue tax returns, you're going to argue,

[00:08:00] Speaker 01:
the amount, why are we doing this?

[00:08:02] Speaker 01:
And there was the other things that the government brought up that are in the other issues.

[00:08:14] Speaker 01:
We can't go back and do an experiment where we do a trial where none of this extra stuff is brought in, the things that are argued in the brief and see what the jury does.

[00:08:29] Speaker 01:
The only way we can do that is having this case overturned in the defendant getting a new trial.

[00:08:33] Speaker 02:
Wasn't there also evidence that he was listing firearms for sale on a couple of different vendor sites?

[00:08:40] Speaker 02:
I don't remember what they're called, ARMS, something or other.

[00:08:42] Speaker 01:
Yeah, ARMS Link or something.

[00:08:44] Speaker 01:
Something like that, yes.

[00:08:45] Speaker 02:
I don't spend a lot of time on those sites or any time on those sites, but there were a couple websites where these firearms were being posted and sold, and they were being sold for more than they would cost if you walked into a retail

[00:08:58] Speaker 01:
dealer and purchase the firearm so all that evidence came in yes that evidence did come in but again it's not illegal to list it

[00:09:10] Speaker 01:
it's not illegal to sell it for more money.

[00:09:13] Speaker 01:
I know in the, I'm kind of skipping around to another issue, but I think this is important, is that when in the sentencing enhancement, when the court said, well, nobody would buy a firearm for more money when you could go into the shop and buy it.

[00:09:30] Speaker 01:
Why?

[00:09:31] Speaker 01:
Where did that even come from?

[00:09:33] Speaker 01:
in terms of evidence before the court, people list stuff on the internet all the time for more money.

[00:09:40] Speaker 01:
Like people will buy stuff in a, you know, like a thrift shop and list it for more money.

[00:09:47] Speaker 02:
But this isn't like a piece of used furniture.

[00:09:49] Speaker 02:
This is highly regulated industry.

[00:09:51] Speaker 02:
And there are a number of people who are prohibited possessors, right?

[00:09:55] Speaker 02:
And so there's issues and difficulties with loopholes and people obtaining firearms who are not supposed to have them.

[00:10:02] Speaker 02:
So the ATF and their agents have developed some expertise about how firearms are trafficked, correct?

[00:10:08] Speaker 02:
So I guess what you're getting at was the lay opinion of one of the agents.

[00:10:13] Speaker 02:
That was significant evidence, the amount of money for which the firearms were being purchased.

[00:10:19] Speaker 01:
Yes, yes.

[00:10:20] Speaker 01:
And that also goes back to one of the other arguments of this lay opinion really was expert testimony of saying things like,

[00:10:33] Speaker 01:
you wouldn't wear that shirt if you were shooting a gun.

[00:10:35] Speaker 01:
And you wouldn't fire a weapon in that way.

[00:10:43] Speaker 01:
Or the defendant seemed to sure have a lot of knowledge about the ATF rules.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
Why is all this brought in if you're just going to argue he purchased this amount of weapons

[00:10:57] Speaker 01:
his bank records don't reflect it.

[00:10:59] Speaker 01:
It's all this other stuff that permeated the trial and made an unfair trial for my client where this case should be reversed and the conviction be vacated.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
I have just under four minutes left.

[00:11:16] Speaker 01:
Can I reserve unless there's any other questions?

[00:11:20] Speaker 02:
Yes, of course.

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:11:26] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:11:37] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:11:39] Speaker 00:
My name is Craig Russell appearing on behalf of the United States.

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
The government is asking this court to affirm the judgment and sentence.

[00:11:46] Speaker 00:
There are several issues before the court this morning.

[00:11:48] Speaker 00:
I'll start with

[00:11:50] Speaker 00:
with the burden shifting issue.

[00:11:53] Speaker 00:
The question and answer here that was discussed earlier by defense counsel did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof.

[00:12:00] Speaker 00:
And there's two arguments here that I'd like to make.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
The first is the context of this questioning was in light of the opening statement by defense counsel where the defense was made clear that what they were going to defend the case on was the fact that the defendant

[00:12:18] Speaker 00:
was a collector or an enthusiast or he liked guns as opposed to someone who was in the business of dealing firearms.

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
So with that backdrop, during the questioning of one of the ATF agents about the defendant's statement, they got into the issue of whether there was documentation of how the defendant disposed of all these firearms.

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
And what was said was that the defendant may have had some documentation that it was vacuumed up at a car wash.

[00:12:44] Speaker 00:
And so that was the context of the prosecutor asking the ATF agent, well, did you ever receive any documentation about or including bills of sales?

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
And so that was the context of that question.

[00:12:55] Speaker 00:
That question and answer in and of itself does not impermissibly shift the burden of proof.

[00:13:01] Speaker 00:
A prosecutor is entitled to comment upon a defendant's failure to present exculpatory evidence, so long as it can't be construed as a comment on the defendant's failure to testify.

[00:13:13] Speaker 00:
And there was no such comment here.

[00:13:15] Speaker 00:
The context of the question was what happened during the investigation.

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
It had nothing to do with what was happening at trial, and it had nothing to do with testifying.

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
That's the first argument that we have with burden shifting.

[00:13:27] Speaker 00:
The second, as the court has already addressed and discussed,

[00:13:30] Speaker 00:
is that any error here was harmless.

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
Immediately after this one single question and answer, the district court immediately reminded the jury of the burden of proof.

[00:13:41] Speaker 00:
After a brief recess, the district court came back and, erring on the side of caution, simply instructed the jury to disregard that one single question and answer.

[00:13:50] Speaker 00:
Of course, the prosecutor, during her closing statement, emphasized the government's burden of proof.

[00:13:56] Speaker 00:
Defense counsel did the same thing.

[00:13:58] Speaker 00:
and of course the district court again during jury instructions emphasized the government's burden of proof and had a special curative jury instruction addressing this specific issue.

[00:14:09] Speaker 00:
And as the court mentioned, we can presume that the jury followed the court's instructions.

[00:14:16] Speaker 00:
So any error here was harmless.

[00:14:19] Speaker 00:
With respect to the question of whether there was improper expert testimony,

[00:14:27] Speaker 00:
In the opening brief, this issue is raised in a couple different places.

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
So there's really three different areas of testimony that were complained about.

[00:14:37] Speaker 00:
So I'd like to address them just simply one at a time.

[00:14:40] Speaker 00:
The first issue dealt with testimony regarding tax returns.

[00:14:45] Speaker 00:
Well, these tax returns were admitted into evidence without objection.

[00:14:49] Speaker 00:
What happened after that is the ATF agent testified as to some facts arising out of these tax returns, dates of filings, amounts of income claimed.

[00:14:58] Speaker 00:
There was no opinion testimony as to the tax returns, lay expert or otherwise.

[00:15:04] Speaker 00:
The cases cited by the defendant in the reply brief can be distinguished.

[00:15:08] Speaker 00:
In those cases, there was expert testimony arising out of tax returns for issues such as tax evasion, tax fraud,

[00:15:18] Speaker 00:
tax consequences of a financial transaction.

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
None of that occurred in this case.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
That was simply lay testimony as it relates to the tax returns.

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
The testimony from the ATF agent about whether a defendant was a collector as opposed to dealing in the business of firearms, there was a couple things here that the agent testified to, but all fall under Rule 701 and was permissible lay opinion testimony.

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
The agent

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
to this end testified that the defendant was leaving factory stickers on his firearms.

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:
He had repetitive purchases of the same type of firearm.

[00:15:56] Speaker 00:
He wore nice clothing while shooting, and that he appeared to be inexperienced in firing one of the weapons.

[00:16:03] Speaker 00:
I think they had a video at trial.

[00:16:05] Speaker 00:
And so all of these observations are simply permissible lay opinion testimony.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
It was all based upon the observation of the agent during the investigation.

[00:16:17] Speaker 00:
was helpful to the jury to understand the testimony, and none of it required specialized technical or scientific knowledge that would have pushed this testimony into the realm of expert testimony under Rule 702.

[00:16:28] Speaker 00:
The same thing can be said with the ATF agent's testimony about whether the defendant appeared to be familiar with ATF rules and regulations.

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
In this case, again, that was based upon the agent's own observations.

[00:16:42] Speaker 00:
He wasn't testifying as to ATF rules and regulations.

[00:16:45] Speaker 00:
He just simply testified that, hey, during my conversation with the defendant, he appeared to have some knowledge of our rules and regulations.

[00:16:51] Speaker 02:
But didn't the agent introduce some potentially inflammatory testimony, referencing grenades or explosives or things that are just not at issue at all in this case?

[00:17:00] Speaker 00:
So there was some reference there, but I think that in the context of how that testimony came to be, it wasn't the agent testifying that the defendant was engaged in that.

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
the agent testified in response to the question that he had some knowledge of ATF restrictions in those areas.

[00:17:17] Speaker 00:
So there was, there was some, I think all parties were concerned about the answer to that question and there was a curative jury instruction by the district court as related to that testimony.

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
But yes, there was, I think it's fair to say there was concerns from all parties about the entirety of the answer from the ATF agent to that question.

[00:17:35] Speaker 00:
But again, I would just emphasize to the court that there was one,

[00:17:39] Speaker 00:
That issue really, in terms of being an inflammatory statement, that really wasn't raised in the brief, and I think it would have been cured by the district court's instructions to the jury.

[00:17:49] Speaker 02:
What did the district court say to the jury?

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
I think she just instructed, if memory serves, she just instructed in a disregard the entire question and answer line of questioning in that regard.

[00:18:03] Speaker 00:
There was also allegations before the court here today of certain Brady violations by the government.

[00:18:11] Speaker 00:
There was two specific areas of evidence that were defendant claims were disclosed late.

[00:18:19] Speaker 00:
There's insufficient evidence in the record to support either of those allegations.

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
Addressing first the allegation that there was

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
late disclosure of border crossing history of the defendant, that's not factually supported by the record.

[00:18:33] Speaker 00:
What happened here is during the first of three sentencing hearings, the defense counsel who had substituted in after trial made a comment that she was not sure if all the border crossing history had been disclosed, but the prosecutor could correct her if that was wrong.

[00:18:48] Speaker 00:
The prosecutor did correct her just a moment later and confirmed with

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
on the record that all the defendant's border crossing history had been disclosed prior to trial.

[00:18:57] Speaker 02:
So was the border crossing history exculpatory?

[00:19:02] Speaker 00:
No, not at all, Your Honor.

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
In fact, I was just going to get to that point.

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
No, what happened in this case is after trial, the case agent with ATF created a summary document that incorporated the crossing history and correlated it to the defendant's firearms purchases.

[00:19:19] Speaker 00:
All of this was based upon information disclosed prior to trial.

[00:19:22] Speaker 00:
And as the Court mentioned, this document was created

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
to enhance the defendant's sentence, what the government tried to do in this case was they sought a sentencing enhancement based on illegally trafficking firearms to Mexico.

[00:19:33] Speaker 02:
Which they did not get, right?

[00:19:35] Speaker 00:
They did not get that.

[00:19:36] Speaker 02:
So this chart was not introduced to trial, is that correct?

[00:19:40] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
So it was used at sentencing to advocate for an enhancement that the district court did not apply?

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
And so it wasn't helpful to the defendant, it wasn't great material.

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
It wasn't disclosed prior to trial because it did not exist prior to trial and was based upon information that was disclosed prior to trial, so it was simply cumulative.

[00:19:59] Speaker 00:
But yes, Your Honor, to your question, it was to enhance the defendant's sentence and wasn't helpful to the defendant, so it was not creating material.

[00:20:08] Speaker 00:
And in any event, it was disclosed well before the first sentencing hearing.

[00:20:12] Speaker 00:
The other piece of evidence

[00:20:15] Speaker 00:
that defendant claims was disclosed late was a recorded statement between agents and the defendants that occurred in the ATF office booking station in Tucson.

[00:20:24] Speaker 00:
The initial argument in the opening brief was that that actual recording was disclosed late.

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
Well, we pointed out in our brief the government did that the defense counsel, the record doesn't support that, defense counsel during the trial proceedings indicated that he was

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
familiar with the contents of that recording, and that he had discussed redactions with the prosecutor prior to trial.

[00:20:46] Speaker 03:
I thought the complaint was that the defense didn't have the transcript.

[00:20:52] Speaker 03:
Am I correct on that?

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
That is now the argument that's raised in the reply brief.

[00:20:56] Speaker 00:
That wasn't clear in the opening brief.

[00:20:57] Speaker 00:
But yes, that's been clarified.

[00:20:59] Speaker 00:
And so with respect to that, what happened is after the close of evidence, the parties were discussing some issues arising out of closing statements.

[00:21:09] Speaker 00:
and the defense counsel made an offhand statement that he did not receive Exhibit 97 until the morning of trial.

[00:21:16] Speaker 00:
Well, that is factually correct, but what the prosecutor made clear is, yes, Exhibit 97 was either the transcript or a portion of the transcript of that recording that was handed, but that was handed to him as an exhibit.

[00:21:28] Speaker 00:
So the exhibit, the transcript marked as an exhibit, was handed to defense counsel the morning of trial, but the actual raw transcript was disclosed before trial, not on the morning of.

[00:21:38] Speaker 03:
And they had the tape, didn't they?

[00:21:39] Speaker 00:
They did.

[00:21:40] Speaker 00:
They had the tape and the transcript.

[00:21:41] Speaker 00:
It was just the transcript marked as an exhibit.

[00:21:44] Speaker 00:
The record's not clear if it was the entire transcript or part of it that was marked as an exhibit.

[00:21:47] Speaker 02:
Was it admitted into evidence?

[00:21:51] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:21:51] Speaker 00:
What occurred was that the prosecutor used it to refresh the agent's recollection, but it was never admitted as an exhibit.

[00:22:05] Speaker 00:
I'll just address briefly the issue regarding the allegation of tampering with evidence.

[00:22:14] Speaker 00:
What happened in this case, the defendant's alleging that the government manipulated or somehow put together some of the firearms that were presented at evidence and trial.

[00:22:22] Speaker 00:
Some background here, some context is important.

[00:22:25] Speaker 00:
What happened is during the investigation, towards the end, ATF agents were able to go out to some local firearms dealers in Tucson and intercept

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
some guns that the defendant had ordered but had not yet received.

[00:22:38] Speaker 00:
Some of these weapons were physically brought into court and admitted to evidence during trial.

[00:22:43] Speaker 00:
It just so happens that with respect to three of these firearms, when they were ordered by the defendant, he ordered them as two separate pieces, as a barrel that matched a lower receiver.

[00:22:53] Speaker 00:
So with respect to just these three firearms,

[00:22:57] Speaker 00:
The defendant ordered them from the same licensed dealer at the same time.

[00:23:01] Speaker 00:
They just came as two separate pieces.

[00:23:04] Speaker 00:
And when trial was going on, the prosecutor tried to admit a photo of those three firearms.

[00:23:10] Speaker 00:
It was exhibit 53.

[00:23:12] Speaker 00:
And when the agent was testifying as the foundational questions as to that photo, he candidly testified that he wasn't sure if the dealer put the two pieces together or if ATF put the two pieces together before the photo was taken.

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
And so with that caveat, the district court admitted the photo of the three firearms.

[00:23:31] Speaker 00:
A few moments later at trial, some of them, I think it was 10, actual physical firearms were brought into the courtroom and admitted into evidence.

[00:23:39] Speaker 00:
The foundational testimony there from the ATF agent was that these were the firearms.

[00:23:45] Speaker 00:
They're in the same condition as when they were seized from the local firearms dealers, and they hadn't been tampered or manipulated with, with the exception of just rendering them safe to be brought into court.

[00:23:54] Speaker 00:
And so there's nothing in the... And a symbol.

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
Yes, I don't think there's anything in the record to support that the ATF had somehow assembled these weapons from a parts kit or from different, the weapons that were actually brought into court, the testimony in the record shows that they were in the same condition as when they were seized.

[00:24:12] Speaker 00:
And what's happening, though, in the argument in the reply brief is extrapolating the statements made by the ATF agent as it relates to the photo of the three guns and extrapolating it to all the other weapons that were physically brought into court.

[00:24:26] Speaker 00:
And there's just nothing in the record to support that.

[00:24:28] Speaker 00:
There's nothing in the record to support that.

[00:24:30] Speaker 00:
Other than the two pieces being put together, there's nothing in the record to support that the government tampered or somehow manipulated this evidence.

[00:24:44] Speaker 00:
The defendant also raised an issue that I wanted to talk about briefly was the defendant complains that the district court improperly limited cross-examination of one of the ATF agents during trial.

[00:24:58] Speaker 00:
What happened here is on direct examination, the ATF agent testified that the defendant stated he got rid of one of his firearms because it had been recalled by the manufacturer and that it was

[00:25:10] Speaker 00:
The ATF agent also testified that when he looked at the manufacturer's website, that weapon had not been recalled.

[00:25:18] Speaker 00:
On cross-examination, defense counsel tried to elicit testimony to the effect of whether the defendant had told the ATF agent if he had fired this weapon.

[00:25:28] Speaker 00:
Well, there was a hearsay objection to that question because it was an exculpatory statement by the defendant, which was hearsay.

[00:25:36] Speaker 00:
The defendant tries to get around the hearsay rule by resorting to the rule of completeness.

[00:25:41] Speaker 00:
But there was nothing unfair or misleading about that follow-on statement about whether the defendant had fired the firearm because the ATF agent in his direct examination never addressed one way or the other whether the defendant had shot that gun.

[00:25:54] Speaker 00:
So there was nothing unfair or misleading that would have given rise to the operation of the rule of completeness.

[00:26:05] Speaker 00:
So unless the court has any questions for me, the government asks that this court affirm.

[00:26:12] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:26:12] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:26:21] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:26:24] Speaker 01:
Just as a reminder, something that I had talked to my client about, there's also a motion to stay the sentence pending appeal that is still pending before this court.

[00:26:36] Speaker 01:
When I talked to my client, I said, it's almost moot, because he's almost done with his sentence.

[00:26:41] Speaker 01:
But if it was granted, it would save him a couple of months.

[00:26:44] Speaker 01:
Because I only have a couple of minutes, I was going to focus mainly on the confrontation clause.

[00:26:50] Speaker 01:
So in that scenario, the defense was prevented from cross-examining regarding firing of the weapon.

[00:27:01] Speaker 01:
And if he was allowed to cross-examine, then the whole statement would have come in.

[00:27:05] Speaker 01:
And the court said, well, your client can testify about it.

[00:27:09] Speaker 01:
So that's the problem.

[00:27:12] Speaker 01:
But the client should not have to testify about it.

[00:27:16] Speaker 01:
And I came up with sort of a silly example, but if there was a statement where a defendant said, you may say I did it, but I didn't,

[00:27:27] Speaker 01:
and the agent just said, well, he said he did it, and there was not allowed to be the cross-examination.

[00:27:35] Speaker 02:
But that would clearly be a rule of completeness problem, which seems to be different from what happened here where the agent didn't say one way or the other.

[00:27:43] Speaker 02:
whether Mr. Delgado said he had fired the firearm.

[00:27:47] Speaker 02:
So I understand your point.

[00:27:48] Speaker 02:
Of course, he doesn't have to testify.

[00:27:51] Speaker 02:
But if he doesn't choose to do so, that doesn't mean that he can bring in exculpatory statements through hearsay.

[00:27:58] Speaker 01:
Well, it's not just bringing in the exculpatory statement, it's to complete the statement.

[00:28:04] Speaker 02:
But how was what the agent said incomplete?

[00:28:07] Speaker 02:
They never said he told me he fired the gun or he told me he didn't fire the gun.

[00:28:11] Speaker 02:
He said the gun was jamming and I checked on the website and it wasn't a malfunction that was happening with this gun.

[00:28:17] Speaker 02:
Something along those lines.

[00:28:18] Speaker 01:
So it gives the impression that the defendant never fired it when the defendant told him he fired it.

[00:28:26] Speaker 01:
Because if the agent is saying, well, the website says... But did he say the defendant told him he fired it?

[00:28:32] Speaker 02:
He said he was jamming?

[00:28:33] Speaker 02:
I mean, so you would assume he fired it or maybe he didn't fire it.

[00:28:37] Speaker 02:
I don't know which impression it gives.

[00:28:39] Speaker 01:
and that's why the testimony of what the defendant actually told them would have completed that rather than the jury speculating about what was going on regarding that statement.

[00:28:50] Speaker 02:
So why, I still am lost on this, why this is so critically important.

[00:28:55] Speaker 02:
He said the gun was jamming, the agents

[00:28:58] Speaker 02:
testified to that and then said I checked on the website and this was not listed as one of the problems with the gun.

[00:29:05] Speaker 02:
So there's no testimony from the agent about he told me he fired it, he told me he didn't fire it.

[00:29:09] Speaker 02:
So how does the rule of completeness come in?

[00:29:12] Speaker 02:
Your client wants to add something else to the discussion that was not testified about, that wasn't part of, wasn't anything omitted, there wasn't anything to be added to what the agent said.

[00:29:23] Speaker 01:
Sure, I understand but I

[00:29:26] Speaker 01:
I don't think that's the case.

[00:29:27] Speaker 01:
I think it needed to be in there to make it complete, and then that was what we were arguing.

[00:29:33] Speaker 01:
I understand the court may disagree, but in our mind, that needed to come in in order for the entire statement to be complete.

[00:29:43] Speaker 01:
Are there, I have about 20 seconds.

[00:29:44] Speaker 01:
Any other questions?

[00:29:47] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you very much.

[00:29:48] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:29:50] Speaker 02:
Thank you, counsel, for your arguments this morning.

[00:29:52] Speaker 02:
They were very helpful.