Hunter Biden is expected to appeal his felony conviction for lying on a federal firearms application, possibly arguing that the judge in the case violated his constitutional rights in his instructions to the jury, according to people in orbit and legal experts.
Mr. Biden’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, also signaled that any appeal would be based on a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2022 that expanded gun rights, a decision that led to a legal challenge to the portion of federal firearms forms at the center of Biden’s case. . In Mr. Biden’s case, it included questions asking buyers about drug use.
Any appeal will be an uphill climb, and lawyers representing President Biden’s son can’t formally file until he is sentenced in court in Wilmington, Del., within 120 days, or about a month after he is scheduled to stand trial in federal court. tax costs in Los Angeles.
There is still a possibility that David C. Weiss, the special counsel in the case, will ask for a plea agreement before the tax trial begins, and will have an impact on the negotiations now that Mr. Biden has become a convicted felon, according to former prosecutors. . Mr. Biden may have a greater incentive to strike a deal to avoid publicizing his personal ordeal beyond what he gave in Wilmington last week.
On Tuesday, after deliberating for more than three hours, a jury convicted Mr. Biden of three felony counts related to falsifying a federal firearms application and illegal possession of a weapon.
Mr. Lowell suggested he appeal, vowing to “pursue all legal challenges available to Hunter.” President Biden said in a statement that he would “accept the outcome of this case and will continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal.”
Hunter Biden, 54, will appeal a Supreme Court decision that his father described as an affront to “common sense and the Constitution” in perhaps the most significant paradox in a case fraught with complexity.
Supreme Court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruin pave the way for potential challenges to other gun laws, including those that deny firearms to people addicted to drugs.
One of the biggest tests of the scope of the decision took place in New Orleans, in February 2023, when a conservative appeals court panel struck down part of a federal law that prohibits people in domestic violence from ordering firearms. The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to uphold or reverse the decision.
Mr. Biden’s team believes that even if the court rules, the decision will provide a road map for further challenges to other provisions in the law, including whether drug abusers can own guns.
Mr. Lowell is also likely to base his appeal on the actions of the judge in the gun trial, Maryellen Noreika, who believes that he created a viable path for the challenge by issuing what he sees as excessively narrow instructions for the jury.
In his brief and blunt instructions, Judge Noreika effectively destroyed a pillar of Mr. Biden’s defense: that the government must prove that Mr. Biden was using drugs on the exact day he signed the application in October 2018.
He said prosecutors need only show that Mr. Biden was “addicted to a controlled substance” or an “unauthorized user” when he bought the gun. The parameters were a sharp but unexpected setback for the defense, which said the instruction “broadcasts the scope of the offense.”
Mr. Lowell can also make other points in the appeal: Judge Noreika’s refusal to admit into evidence a version of the shape of the gun modified by a gun store employee, questions about the government’s decision last July to scrap the previous plea deal, and legal points raised. in a motion to dismiss the charges filed by Mr. Lowell before the jury deliberated.
A weeklong trial in Wilmington revealed Mr. Biden’s devastating cocaine addiction and reckless spending — recounted by three former romantic partners and harrowing and disturbing text exchanges.
But it is, nevertheless, a prelude to a tax trial in California stemming from an investigation into overseas business affairs initiated by Mr. Weiss, Trump-appointed US Attorney in Delaware, six years ago.
Hunter Biden was paid millions to be on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company – “and spent this money on drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothes and other things of a personal nature, in short . . , everything but the tax,” prosecutors wrote in the tax charge in December.
It’s unclear how the Delaware case could affect the California trial. But the fact that Mr. Biden has been convicted of a crime in federal court could help start negotiations on the tax case. Neither Mr. Weiss nor his hard-driving top representative, Leo J. Wise, has signaled his willingness to cut the deal after winning so decisively in Delaware, people close to Mr. Biden said.
Michael S. Weinstein, a former Justice Department prosecutor, said the government would entertain the plea agreement if it sent a message to the rest of America: “You have to pay taxes, whether you’re the president’s son or not.”
Mr. Weinstein, who leads the white-collar criminal defense and government investigation practice at the Cole Schotz law firm, said that prosecutors usually look for certain elements in plea offers related to tax offenses. One of them, he said, was the tax refund, which Mr. Biden did.
Prosecutors have given no indication that they will open a deal, people close to Mr. Biden said.
Republicans allied with former President Donald J. Trump sharply criticized Mr. Weiss last year after he negotiated a plea deal that would have allowed Mr. Biden to participate in a counseling program for people who commit nonviolent firearms offenses in lieu of prosecution or prison time.
The deal was then followed by strong questions from Judge Noreika.
Mr. Biden faces up to 25 years in prison on the gun charges, although federal sentencing guidelines call for a fraction of that sentence.
First offenders who did not use a weapon to commit a violent crime received a relatively light sentence, and Mr. Weiss suggested on Tuesday that he would not seek a sentence “more severe” than others convicted in the case.
Eileen Sullivan contribute reports.
