Los Angeles, California – A federal judge expressed doubt on Wednesday regarding Hunter Biden’s legal team’s arguments to dismiss his felony tax indictment, potentially setting the stage for a trial this summer. The judge, US District Judge Mark Scarsi, stated that he would reach a decision on the motions to dismiss the case by April 17. The three-hour hearing grew contentious as Hunter Biden’s lawyers clashed with special counsel David Weiss’ team.
If the case proceeds, Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, would face two separate criminal trials in June, coinciding with the intensification of the 2024 campaign. Apart from the tax case in California, Weiss also indicted Hunter Biden on gun charges in Delaware, to which he pleaded not guilty.
Judge Scarsi made it clear that he disagrees with the defense’s claims that the prosecution has been compromised by “outrageous” partisan misconduct or that the broad immunity provisions in Hunter Biden’s failed plea deal last summer prevented Weiss from filing the tax indictment in December.
The plea deal in 2023 offered immunity for many of the same tax issues raised in the current indictment. It accuses Hunter Biden of repeatedly failing to file and pay taxes on time, participating in an illicit tax evasion scheme by filing false tax returns, and manipulating his company’s payroll records.
Judge Scarsi indicated that, according to the language in the 2023 deal, it seems that the terms were not triggered because it lacked a signature from probation officials in Delaware.
Furthermore, the judge questioned Hunter Biden’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell’s theory, that Weiss only pursued charges due to pressure from former President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers. Judge Scarsi stated that there seems to be no evidence indicating that public pressure influenced the prosecution’s decision.
However, Lowell urged the judge to consider the sequence of events, highlighting how a proposed misdemeanor tax plea deal and “diversion” deal to resolve a gun charge escalated to two felony indictments. Lowell suggested that this timeline was influenced by Trump’s criticism of the supposed “sweetheart deal” and GOP lawmakers who advocated for additional charges.
Weiss’ team argued that Hunter Biden’s lawyers were resorting to an “attack-the-prosecutors” strategy because they lacked the necessary evidence to challenge the case. They dismissed Lowell’s claims as a “revisionist history” and objected to being accused of serving Trump’s interests.
The judge, while skeptical of the defense’s more ambitious claims, appeared more open to arguments that some of the misdemeanor counts might be legally flawed. One point raised by Hunter Biden’s lawyers is that the statute of limitations may have expired for the failure-to-pay tax offense from 2016.
Additional developments during the hearing were noted but not specified in the update provided.
Note: This article has been written in Associated Press (AP) News Style and does not mention any specific news organization.