United States v. Damon Willis, 19-3361

Damon Willis was charged in three counts under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for arrests in 2015, 2016, and 2017; he claimed a “sovereign citizen” theory in two arrests.
At trial the jury was instructed that the government need not prove Willis knew he was prohibited from possessing firearms; the jury convicted on two counts.
After trial, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif, requiring proof that a § 922(g) defendant knew he possessed a firearm and knew he belonged to the prohibited category (e.g., was a felon).
The court recognized that failing to submit the knowledge-of-status question to the grand and petit juries was plain error under Rehaif, but evaluated whether the error affected Willis’s substantial rights.
The government relied on strong record evidence of Willis’s knowledge: a prior federal felon-in-possession conviction, multiple state felonies and sentences exceeding one year, and Willis’s trial stipulation that he was a felon.
Separately, Willis challenged admission of detective Nodari’s testimony recounting three bystanders’ statements about the shooting as hearsay; the court found any such error harmless given Willis’s admissions (including “That’s my gun.”) and other overwhelming evidence of possession.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to instruct juries on knowledge of felon status under Rehaif	Government: Any Rehaif error did not affect substantial rights because record plainly shows Willis knew he was a felon (prior convictions, stipulation).	Willis: Omission violated Rehaif; government must prove he knew he was in the prohibited category.	The omission was plain error but harmless; conviction affirmed.
Admissibility of officer testimony recounting third-party statements (hearsay)	Government: Testimony was not offered for truth (or, even if error, it was harmless due to overwhelming proof of possession).	Willis: Detective’s recounting of witnesses was inadmissible hearsay and should have been excluded.	Even assuming hearsay error, admission was harmless given strong independent evidence (Willis’s admissions).

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (mens rea requires both knowledge of possession and knowledge of prohibited status)
United States v. Davies, 942 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2019) (evidence of prior convictions typically shows defendant knew he was a felon)
United States v. Hollingshed, 940 F.3d 410 (8th Cir. 2019) (Rehaif instructional omission is clear error)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standards for plain-error review)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (defendant must show reasonable probability that outcome would differ absent error)
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (omission of an element from grand jury is not a structural error requiring automatic reversal)
United States v. Davis, 449 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2006) (statements not hearsay when offered to explain police investigation)
United States v. Welch, 951 F.3d 901 (8th Cir. 2020) (prior long prison sentences support inference defendant knew of felony convictions)