The legal battle of Hunter Biden’s lawyers against the jury’s decision that found him guilty of three crimes related to the illegal purchase and possession of a revolver has begun. Lawyers for the president’s son have requested that he annul and, in his case, repeat the trial, alleging an alleged procedural error. They argue that they filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals and that it never returned jurisdiction, so the trial should not even have started. “Mr. Biden’s convictions must be annulled because the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial,” a letter dated Monday states in its conclusion. In another writing, the defense of the president’s son also alleges that his trial has violated the right to have weapons enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
Hunter Biden’s lawyers cite precedent, the DeFries case, in which a conviction was annulled precisely because of that same procedural error. As then, now, “the court summoned a jury and proceeded to trial before the Court of Appeals returned jurisdiction to the court by issuing its mandate. Consequently, the conviction must be annulled,” says the brief presented on behalf of Hunter Biden before the Wilmington (Delaware) court that handled the case.
According to said brief, this procedural deficiency would not be fixed even if the Court of Appeals now returned jurisdiction to the Wilmington court. The problem would only be corrected with a new trial, they allege. They also recognize that this transfer and suspension of the jurisdiction of the federal court does not operate in the case of “frivolous” appeals, according to the doctrine of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the judicial district to which the case corresponds. However, they defend that the appeals presented by Hunter Biden did not have that nature, even if they were dismissed.
The judge will have to consider whether this legal argument has sufficient weight. Hunter Biden’s lawyers may use it in their subsequent appeals as well.
Unconstitutional conviction
It is not the only argument that Hunter Biden’s defense uses to request a retrial. In another independent writing, the lawyers maintain that the foundations of the recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld the restrictions for people under a restraining order for domestic violence to possess firearms lend themselves to an acquittal in the case of the president’s son. , or “at least” to a new trial.
Join Morning Express to follow all the news and read without limits.
Subscribe
“The Supreme Court has again emphasized that the possession of firearms is presumptively a constitutional right and that the only valid exceptions must be analogous to a historical exception that existed when the Second Amendment was adopted” to the Constitution, which enshrined the right to possess and carry firearms.
In reality, the Supreme Court ruling, endorsing the prohibition of abusers from having weapons, results in the opposite result in the interests of Hunter Biden. His lawyers, however, delve into the argument of the sentence to bring the ember to his sardine. “The Supreme Court emphatically and unanimously rejected the Government’s other argument for the law which was based on the assertion that Congress can disarm people it presumes to be dangerous or not responsible,” he maintains.
Hunter Biden’s lawyers point out that the prohibitions in sections 922(g)(8) and 922(g)(3) of the US criminal law are very different and have very different historical backgrounds. Section 922(g)(8) applies only to persons who are “subject to a court order” that “was issued following a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and in which such person had the opportunity to participate”, and said order determines that the person poses “a credible threat to the physical safety of the partner or minor” and prevents said person from “harassing, stalking or threatening” the partner or minor, they explain.
On the contrary, in his opinion, article 922(g)(3), by which the president’s son was found guilty of one of the crimes, could violate the Constitution because “it applies to an addict or an illegal consumer of drugs without any court order declaring their danger in any sense.” “This distinction is fundamental for the analysis of the Second Amendment,” they add, emphasizing that the Supreme Court is governed by the historical analogy with the moment in which the constitutional text was approved.
“Mr. Biden is entitled to an acquittal because there is no evidence that his conduct fits this historic exception or, at a minimum, he is entitled to a new trial because the jury was never instructed and made no factual finding about the applicability of this exception.” instruction,” they argue. That other 18-page document concludes: “The Court must order the acquittal of Mr. Biden because the charges against him are unconstitutional.”
The son of the president of the United States was found guilty of three crimes by the popular jury, although the judge has not yet imposed the sentence. The crimes (false declaration when purchasing a firearm; false declaration in documents to be kept on file by the seller of the firearm and illegal possession of a firearm) are punishable by a maximum of 25 years in prison, but it is not common such a penalty when the illegal purchase and possession of a weapon is not accompanied by other violent crimes and the convicted person has no criminal record. Never before had the son of a United States president been tried in a criminal case.
Hunter Biden purchased a Colt Cobra 38SPL revolver and filled out Form 4473, a multi-page form in which he denied being an illegal user or addict of any stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance. The gun ended up 11 days later in a trash can at a Greenville supermarket, about a 10-minute drive from the gun store.
Follow all the international information on Facebook and xor in our weekly newsletter.
