U.S. Attorneys Can't Prove Gun is a Gun

**larrymeyer** · November 19th, 2008, 07:16 PM

Is this f up or what

http://www.officer.com/online/articl...ion=1&id=44217

OMAHA, Neb. --

A unique case in an Omaha courtroom involved U.S. attorneys trying to use an unusual method to convict a man.

KETV in Omaha reported that attorneys had a conundrum on their hands -- they had the evidence to prove the convicted felon was in possession of a gun, but they couldn’t prove the gun was a gun.

What attorney’s had on their hands was an American double-action revolver that was manufactured between 1880 and 1941.

The problem is that federal code states that the weapon is not a firearm unless it was manufactured after 1896. Without a definitive production date, the gun was inadmissible as evidence.

At the time, the attorneys were trying to charge Lawrence Ray Cook with possession of the weapon.

Omaha police picked up Cook last September after a hit-and-run crash. U.S. attorney Joe Stecher said that Cook left the scene but he flagged down officers later to tell them he caused the crash.

“His testimony was that he swerved to miss two pedestrians and he hit another car. And as he was driving away they threw the revolver in the back of his car through the open window,” Stecher said.

The attorney said that Cook couldn't explain how the revolver got into his pocket.

However, it didn't matter because attorneys couldn't prove what Cook had was a gun.

But they proved something else instead.

“Two rounds of live ammunition and an empty casing gave us the ability to prosecute for felony in possession of ammunition,” Stecher said.

The jury convicted Cook and added another charge to his record. It includes forgery and burglary.

“Terroristic threats, two counts of confining, a personal assault on an officer, he's an armed career criminal,” Stecher said.

Prosecutors had the ammunition to convince a jury Cook should go to federal prison for 15 years.

He’s scheduled to be sentenced next January.