Nearly two weeks after President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden was convicted on three felony gun counts, he is waging a long-shot bid to fight that outcome.
Attorneys for Hunter Biden requested a new trial in court papers filed Monday, arguing that his “convictions should be vacated” because the trial commenced before a circuit court formally issued a mandate denying his appeal — a technical argument disputing not the merits of the case, but a procedural claim.
“Here, no mandate was issued during the trial or even now,” attorneys for Biden wrote. “Consequently, the conviction must be vacated.”
The younger Biden was found guilty earlier this month on two counts of making false statements for saying on a federal form that he was not addicted to drugs at the time he purchased a Colt Cobra 38SPL revolver in October 2018, and a third count of illegally obtaining the firearm while addicted to drugs.
Attorneys for Hunter Biden also argued in a separate filing Monday that the Supreme Court’s decision this week in U.S. v. Rahimi, which upheld a longstanding federal ban on firearms for people under domestic violence restraining orders, supported their motion for an acquittal or, “at a minimum,” a new trial.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in that decision that when “an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may — consistent with the Second Amendment — be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect.”
Because Hunter Biden never acted violently or misused his gun, his attorneys argued on Monday, his Second Amendment right to bear arms ought to remain intact.
“Here, the jury did not find Mr. Biden ever terrorized anyone with a gun in public , or anywhere else, or used it dangerously in any way,” attorneys for Biden wrote. “That requires Mr. Biden’s acquittal.”
First lady Jill Biden, Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, joined by his wife Melissa Cohen Biden, leave the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building on June 11, 2024, in Wilmington, Del. A federal jury has convicted Hunter Biden on all three federal felony gun charges he faced.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images, FILE
Hunter Biden’s legal team also reprised a question they raised at trial about how long after a drug addict stops using drugs before they can purchase a firearm — perhaps laying the foundation for yet another appeal.
“Where is this line that separates not only what is legal from what is illegal, but where the exercise of a constitutionally protected right becomes a felony? How does a person have fair notice of when he or she is allowed to possess a firearm if they used a prohibited substance a day, a week, a month or, as the Special Counsel argued, years before? This Court has not said,” they argued.
Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, is seeking a new trial following his recent conviction in a gun case. The case stems from an incident in which Hunter Biden allegedly lied on a background check form when purchasing a firearm. He was convicted of this charge in a federal court in October.
Hunter Biden’s legal team has argued that there were errors made during the trial that warrant a new trial. They claim that the judge in the case made several rulings that were prejudicial to their client, including allowing certain evidence to be admitted that should have been excluded. They also argue that the jury was not properly instructed on the law and that this may have influenced their decision.
In addition to these legal arguments, Hunter Biden’s lawyers have also raised concerns about the political nature of the case. They claim that there was undue pressure on the prosecution to secure a conviction due to Hunter Biden’s high-profile status as the son of the President. They argue that this may have influenced the outcome of the trial and that Hunter Biden did not receive a fair hearing.
The case has garnered significant media attention, with many commentators speculating on the potential implications for President Biden and his administration. Some have suggested that the case could be used by political opponents to attack the President and his family, while others have argued that it is simply a legal matter that should be handled impartially.
Regardless of the outcome of Hunter Biden’s request for a new trial, it is clear that this case has raised important questions about the intersection of politics and the legal system. It remains to be seen how the courts will ultimately rule on this matter and what impact it may have on Hunter Biden and his family.
