With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". recognized an innocent possession defense; however, we can find no case in which a circuit has squarely applied the innocent possession defense to a § 922(g)(1) charge, where the elements of a justification defense are not present. See United States v. Ali, 63 F.3d 710, 716 n. 7 (8th Cir.1995) (declining to address whether the defense was available because defense counsel failed to seek a proper instruction on the innocent possession theory, but noting that its case law did not foreclose such a defense); United States v. Elder, 16 F.3d 733, 738 (7th Cir.1994) (concluding that although the innocent possession defense presented a “novel issue,” it need not decide the issue because the evidence did not support the defense); cf. United States v. Wolak, 923 F.2d 1193, 1198 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). There are reported state court judgments,

A: holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity
B: holding that unpleaded affirmative defense was properly considered by the district court where plaintiff had notice of the defense and an opportunity to respond
C: recognizing defense in securities case
D: recognizing an innocent possession defense though the defense in that case is more properly considered a justification defense as life and limb were arguably at stake
D.