Background
Delbert Tyler Trevino was federally indicted for possessing an unregistered short-barreled rifle and willfully receiving ammunition while under felony indictment. During his trial, Trevino sought to introduce evidence that El Paso police had returned his firearms and labeled the rifle a long rifle on a release form. He argued this evidence showed he lacked knowledge that the barrel was short or that he was prohibited from possessing ammunition. The district court allowed testimony on his state of mind but barred arguments suggesting the police return of the guns made his possession lawful.
The court’s reasoning
The Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred in striking parts of the defense counsel’s closing argument. The court found that while the district court initially mischaracterized the argument as a public-authority defense, the substance of the argument was impermissible. Counsel’s remarks implied that the jury could acquit Trevino even if he knew the barrel was short or that he was prohibited from possessing ammunition, simply because the police returned the firearms. The court held that a district court has discretion to limit arguments that misstate the law or suggest a false basis for acquittal. The court affirmed that the district court properly instructed the jury that police return of firearms did not make possession lawful.
That was an impermissible argument. The court correctly ruled it out of bounds and instructed the jury not to consider it.
United States v. Trevino, No. 24-2170 (10th Cir. May 21, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that defense counsel cannot argue that government officials’ actions, such as returning seized property, override statutory prohibitions or negate the elements of a crime during closing arguments.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download