The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's ruling in the case of Boru Wako, Jr., who was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court's decision affects how courts interpret firearm possession laws for individuals with felony charges. This ruling could have implications for similar cases across the United States.
Boru Wako, Jr. was found guilty of two counts related to firearm possession: being a felon in possession of a firearm and illegal receipt of a firearm while under indictment. The case arose from an incident in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where Wako fled from police during a traffic stop. Officers later discovered a handgun in the vehicle he had been driving, which led to his indictment. Wako challenged the legality of the charges against him, arguing they violated his Second Amendment rights.
The case began when law enforcement attempted to stop a vehicle reported as stolen. When Wako, the driver, noticed the officers, he fled on foot. After the chase, police found a handgun in the driver’s door of the vehicle and identified Wako through DNA evidence on the firearm. Following his indictment, Wako filed motions to dismiss the charges, claiming that the laws under which he was charged were unconstitutional.
Wako's legal team argued that he should not be classified as a felon under South Dakota law, and therefore, he should not be subject to the federal prohibition against firearm possession. However, the district court denied his motions, leading to a jury trial where Wako was convicted. He was sentenced to 84 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release.
During the trial, Wako sought to introduce an affidavit from a witness who claimed that the firearm belonged to someone else. The district court denied this request, stating the affidavit did not meet the necessary legal standards for admissibility. Wako also moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, but this motion was denied.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decisions regarding Wako's motions to dismiss the indictment. The court found that the lower court had erred in its handling of Wako's as-applied challenge to the illegal receipt of a firearm charge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). The appellate court noted that the district court had failed to revisit this challenge after the trial, which it should have done to provide a complete analysis.
The court ruled, "the district court did not err in denying Wako’s motion to dismiss the § 922(g)(1) count," but it did err in not addressing the as-applied challenge to § 922(n) post-trial.
The Eighth Circuit emphasized that the district court needed to make factual findings regarding Wako's challenge and remanded the case for further proceedings. This means that the lower court must now address the constitutional questions raised by Wako's defense regarding the firearm possession laws.
This ruling has significant implications for individuals facing similar charges, especially those arguing that firearm possession laws infringe upon their Second Amendment rights. The decision may set a precedent for how courts handle challenges to firearm possession laws in the future, particularly for those who are under indictment.
As for what’s next, the case will return to the district court for further proceedings to resolve the outstanding issues regarding Wako's as-applied challenge to § 922(n). It remains to be seen whether Wako will continue to pursue his legal arguments or if he will seek to appeal further depending on the outcome of the remanded proceedings.