of Oral Arg. from a . 415 U.S. 814. Given this evidence, the jury reasonably could have concluded that the televisions were stolen, and the trial court therefore properly allowed the evidence to go to the jury. I think it is correct as she bought — again this is a — this is an opening statement which I gave. The District Court allowed the Government to introduce evidence of "similar acts" under Rule 404(b), concluding that such evidence had "clear relevance as to [petitioner's knowledge]." Section 922(b)(2) makes it unlawful for a dealer to "sell or deliver" a weapon to a person in any State where "at the place of sale, delivery or other disposition," the transfer would violate local law. Extrinsic acts evidence may be critical to the establishment of the truth as to a disputed issue, especially when that issue involves the actor's state of mind and the only means of ascertaining that mental state is by drawing inferences from conduct. Senator Tydings made this further comparison: "[I]t is obvious that many persons with criminal records purchase from pawnbrokers, and there are many occasions when the pawnbroker knows the criminal background of the client. SCOTUSCase Litigants=Huddleston v. United States ArgueDate=March 23 ArgueYear=1988 DecideDate=May 2 DecideYear=1988 FullName=Guy Rufus Huddleston v. United States of America USVol=485 USPage=681 Citation= Prior=Conviction affirmed by the Sixth… Advisory Committee's Notes on Fed. Now, we believe that first of all, the use in other sections of the laws of broader terminology, such as deliver, would indicate that the term acquisition has a narrower meaning and is simply physical transfer. App., p. 691. The Government argues for a very broad one, we think that it is a very narrow one, and that it does not apply simply to any — coming in to possession. It was directed to the situation — this situation. We share petitioner's concern that unduly prejudicial evidence might be introduced under Rule 404(b). But how does that help you owning — that this was — that this redemption was open and —. We do not concede that it does include dispositions of firearms by the pawn redemption method. The sum of an evidentiary presentation may well be greater than its constituent parts." from a . Government’s — the Government doesn’t want and Congress didn’t want that gun to get back into his hands and in addition, I would make this further point about 923 (g). Could well be, I don’t see that that affects the statute. The statute, the 923 (g) says, that they may make regulations with regard to records of sales or other disposition, so that if we determine that this is not a disposition, they may be entitled to make no records at all when the gun goes out. We don’t believe that title as such is dependent in this case. 515, 522, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971). Pp. Rep. No. The jury convicted petitioner on the possession count only. We’d certainly say that reacquire falls within the meaning of acquire just as resale, or re-rent. The pawnbroker was a federally licensed firearms dealer. For instance, the jury may choose to punish the defendant for the similar rather than the charged act, or the jury may infer that the defendant is an evil person inclined to violate the law. Basically what happened is the Justice Department was trying to create a lack of conflict in the Circuits by contending that this case was different in the Laisure case. FOR ONLY $13.90/PAGE, Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston - Oral Argument -…, Huddleston v. United States - Oral Argument - March 23, 1988, Itel Containers International Corporation v.…, Itel Containers International Corporation v. Huddleston, Zuni Public School Dist. Petitioner stated that he had sold 6,500 Memorex tapes for Wesby on a commission basis. In the instant case, the evidence that petitioner was selling the televisions was relevant under the Government's theory only if the jury could reasonably find that the televisions were stolen. Moreover, the statutory terms "acquisition" and "sale or other disposition" are correlatives. It is my contention that is — to be narrowly construed. Is it conceded here that the original possession was illegal? This is not to say, however, that the Government may parade past the jury a litany of potentially prejudicial similar acts that have been established or connected to the defendant only by unsubstantiated innuendo. That Act set certain conditions on the "transfer" of machine guns and other dangerous weapons. They try to avoid the pawn laws and the usury interest rates by going to a buy and sell. The statute defines the dealer to be: "(A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms or ammunition at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker. at 21789. On the following October 15 and on December 28, he pawned at. On its face, this argument might be said to have some force. In his brief, petitioner argued that the Government was required to prove to the trial court the commission of the similar act by clear and convincing proof.