of Sergeant DeGraff was stricken from the record at the close of the trial. Finally, the evidence against Turbe on Counts Three, Four, and Five was significant, consisting of the testimony of the police officers as well as Turbe’s own admission that he physically possessed the gun when he was stopped by the police. However, Turbe also testified that he had come into possession of the gun (and ammunition) only moments earlier, and that he called out to Sergeant DeGraff to inform him that he had recently come into possession of the gun. Had the jury believed Turbe’s testimony, he would have arguably had an affirmative defense to the crime of unauthorized possession of a firearm. See 23 V.I.C. § 470(a) (1996); see also United States v. McKie, 36 V.I. 367, 112 F.3d 626, 630 (3d Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>). The Court is deeply troubled by the
holding that title 23 section 470 of the virgin islands code creates an affirmative defense to the crime of unauthorized possession of a firearm in violation of title 14 section 2253a of the virgin islands code holding that each subsection of penal code section 22021a1b creates separate offense holding that the unauthorized practice of law constitutes violation of code holding that the retaliation provision of title vii is an adequate exercise of congress authority under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment holding trial court erred by imposing sanctions under section 9 of civil practice and remedies code because claim for sanctions was based solely on section 10 of code and rule 13 of rules of civil procedure