Los Angeles – Attorneys representing Hunter Biden argued in court on Wednesday to dismiss the nine tax charges brought against him, alleging that prosecutors mishandled some aspects of the case and allowed political influences to impact their decisions.
If U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi does not dismiss the charges and a deal is not reached, the president’s son could potentially stand trial in June, coinciding with President Biden’s reelection campaign. Hunter Biden, who was not present at the hearing, has pleaded not guilty to the charges in both cases, attributing some of the alleged behavior to a drug addiction following the death of his brother in 2015.
Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, have criticized Biden’s legal troubles, claiming it points to corruption within the Biden family. Meanwhile, Biden’s legal team states that their client has already repaid the government for the unpaid taxes, with interest, and argue that the Justice Department has pursued more serious charges due to political pressure.
Prosecutors have refuted these allegations. Scarsi has not disclosed his ruling on the dismissal motions but contested the claim that the indictment was a result of “selective and vindictive” prosecution. A decision on all motions is expected by April 17.
Hunter Biden’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, argued in court that the escalation of charges to felonies in Los Angeles, just months before trial, was unwarranted. Lowell referenced a failed plea agreement from July that would have seen Biden plead guilty to tax misdemeanors and avoid jail time, as well as a diversion agreement related to gun charges.
Special counsel David Weiss later charged Biden in Los Angeles with felony and misdemeanor tax charges. The indictment alleges that Biden did not pay at least $1.4 million in federal taxes from 2016 to 2019, including accusations of tax evasion and filing false returns.
The hearing focused on how the two misdemeanor charges in the initial plea agreement turned into more serious charges in Los Angeles. Lowell suggested that pressure from congressional Republicans and IRS whistleblowers influenced the decision.
Prosecutors argued that they were not bound by the collapsed plea agreement and had the discretion to alter charges as they built their case. Hunter Biden’s attorneys also contended that a dismissed immunity provision from a gun diversion agreement should protect him from tax-related crimes during specific years.
The judge expressed interest in the necessity of the probation official’s signature on the agreement and questioned the inclusion of immunity provisions in the diversion agreement. Lowell maintained that Hunter Biden was complying with the terms of the agreement.
Both sides presented arguments regarding the appointment of special counsels and the jurisdiction for filing charges. The judge deliberated on the requests, emphasizing his focus on facts and law rather than personal attacks or political implications surrounding the case.