Left: Special counsel David Weiss (AP Photo/Alex Brandon); Hunter Biden departs after a closed door private deposition with House committees leading the President Biden impeachment inquiry, on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Special counsel David Weiss filed a motion urging the judge in Hunter Biden's federal gun case in Delaware not to allow the defense to delay the proceedings.
On Wednesday, President Joe Biden’s son's lawyers requested to indefinitely postpone the proceedings while waiting for an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. They asked the U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika not to schedule a trial.
In their request, Hunter Biden described the government's efforts to move forward with the case as 'unlawful and illogical'.
On Friday, Weiss responded strongly, stating that the defense is mistaken about several basic areas of law and federal procedure.
The government's response stated, “[T]he defendant for the first time asks this Court to stay the district court proceedings while he pursues a frivolous appeal which the Third Circuit does not have jurisdiction to hear. Without providing any authority to support his claim that the issues he appeals are subject to interlocutory review, the defendant simply asserts that ‘[t]his Court has been divested of jurisdiction, so it cannot proceed.’ The defendant is incorrect.” government’s response reads. “Without providing any authority to support his claim that the issues he appeals are subject to interlocutory review, the defendant simply asserts that ‘[t]his Court has been divested of jurisdiction, so it cannot proceed.’ The defendant is incorrect.”
As Law&Crime reported, the defendant intends to raise the same arguments Noreika recently rejected before the appellate panel. Hunter Biden claims his torpedoed plea and diversion agreement “conferred” him with immunity from prosecution and that his indictment violated the separation of powers. He has also argued unsuccessfully that Weiss was unlawfully appointed and funded by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, arguments Donald Trump’s defense attorneys have embraced in the Mar-a-Lago case.
The Third Circuit has only asked the parties to brief the issue of jurisdiction in the matter by the first week of May. The merits of the case itself being considered by the appeals court are an open question that a higher collection of judges have yet to answer.
Weiss says the appeals court cannot take the case.
“Defendant cannot establish appellate jurisdiction because the orders he appeals are not final orders or collateral orders subject to interlocutory review,” the special counsel’s response reads.
The government, citing some Supreme Court precedent, says Hunter Biden’s claimed immunity from prosecution is not the kind of appellate courts have been allowed to consider before a trial occurs.
“The immunity the defendant claims to enjoy is contained within the diversion agreement, which he incorrectly argued was in effect,” the filing goes on. “That is different from a right not to be tried.”
More Law&Crime coverage: Hunter Biden appealing judge’s resounding refusal to throw out gun indictment based on ‘immunity’ under crumpled up agreement
Weiss also argues that the defense's attempt to bring the higher court into how Weiss was hired is essentially an argument that the agency's regulations were not properly followed. The government notes that, although not specifically addressed by case law, indictments cannot be dismissed just because the federal government occasionally ignores its own rules.
Hunter Biden is trying to reschedule a currently planned event in real terms. A trial date on June 3 is currently penciled in and approaching quickly.The defense says this schedule basically favors the government.
Once again, Weiss strongly criticized the president's son.
The government's response says that the parties agreed on the June 3, 2024, trial date at the last status conference with the Court. They then provided a joint submission that included a set of agreed pretrial deadlines before that trial date.
The government then takes a broad perspective of the case to argue that the defense has had enough time to prepare for trial. It also accuses the defendant for the fourth time of using unnecessary delay tactics.
The grand jury indicted the defendant over seven months ago, and the defendant has been represented by counsel in connection with this investigation for more than three years. The special counsel's brief concludes that the defendant's change of strategy after the Court's denial of his pretrial motions does not prevent the Court from issuing a proper scheduling order. The defendant's appeal is seen as a transparent attempt to delay the trial.