Left: Special counsel David Weiss (AP Photo/Alex Brandon); Hunter Biden leaves after a private deposition with House committees involved in the President Biden impeachment inquiry, on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Hunter Biden’s attorneys once again challenged the Special Counsel’s Office while opposing prosecutors’ attempt to compel President Joe Biden to follow a court order in his California tax case as he appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On Monday, special counsel David Weiss asked U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi to instruct the defense to submit proposed jury instructions as per the court's order, in order to avoid rescheduling the June 20 trial. Weiss argued that Biden missed the deadline and did not provide any proposed jury instructions to the government, seemingly to delay his trial by claiming notice of pushed for an interlocutory appeal deprived Scarsi of jurisdiction in the meantime. The special counsel claimed that Biden unilaterally chose not to adhere to the court order and should not be allowed to delay the trial by filing an improper notice of appeal of a non-appealable order.
Weiss stated, “The defendant is simply choosing to ignore the Standing Order, without first seeking relief from this Court, while hoping that the Ninth Circuit will, contrary to its prior precedent, be the first court to find it has jurisdiction to consider the issues involved in his interlocutory appeal.” An order from this Court is therefore necessary to keep the pretrial schedule and deadlines on track for the trial scheduled for June 20, 2024.
However, the defense responded on Tuesday that prosecutors did not provide any advance notice about the “filed before Scarsi with a proposed order that would force Biden’s compliance.”
In early April, Scarsi thoroughly rejected Biden’s dismissal arguments, including the claim that Donald Trump confidant Roger Stone was “similarly situated” to Hunter but was treated better. A notice of interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit was then filed on April 12.ex parte In the same month, within the context of Hunter Biden’s Delaware federal gun case, the defense filed a notice of interlocutory appeal of the
U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika’s denial ex parte of his motion to dismiss focused on “immunity” just before the deadline for submitting a proposed trial schedule. This history helps in understanding the ongoing legal maneuvering.
Weiss said that the defense only told prosecutors at the last minute that they wouldn't agree to a joint scheduling proposal. Instead, they would file a status report separately. In that report, they made their first public mention of their notice of interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
first reference publicly to its notice of interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Weiss first said he wouldn't agree to a status report that went against a clear court order and could impact the June 3 trial date. In another response, the special counsel stated that the notice of appeal was an “improper” and “frivolous” attempt to delay the trial by incorrectly arguing that the trial judge couldn't proceed until the appeal was finished.
said the notice of appeal was an “improper” and “frivolous” attempt at delaying trial by incorrectly arguing the trial judge’s hands were tied until the appeal ran its course. “The defendant is asking the Court for the first time to halt the district court proceedings while he pursues a frivolous appeal which the Third Circuit doesn't have jurisdiction to hear,” Weiss said, urging Noreika. “The defendant hasn't provided any authority to support his claim that the issues he appeals are subject to interlocutory review. Instead, he simply asserts that ‘[t]his Court has been divested of jurisdiction, so it cannot proceed.’ The defendant is incorrect.”
. In his latest California case filing, Weiss argued much the same. This time, however, the defense responded by blaming prosecutors for springing the compliance demand on them without notice and for filing their application in a manner that “flagrantly violated each requirement for seeking such relief under this Court’s rules.” “Mr. Biden’s lawyers asked to discuss the issue twice. Both times the Special Counsel refused, the last time stating only ‘in light of the position you’re taking we don’t think a call would accomplish anything,'” the defense said. “It's now clear that the prosecutors intended to file their motion and could easily have used Mr. Biden’s lawyers’ request for a call to discuss the application, rather than claim imaginary ‘extraordinary’ circumstances in seeking an application.”
application. Biden’s lawyers, arguing that Weiss is “wrong” to say the tax case can continue during the interlocutory appeal, urged Scarsi to wait for the Ninth Circuit to rule, rather than side with Weiss and push ahead. “This Court can't determine the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction because that question is before the Ninth Circuit,” the defense response said. “It also doesn't make sense for this Court to wade into that thicket. The Special Counsel’s motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and pending before the Ninth Circuit. There's no point in restarting that process in this Court, especially when either side could then appeal this Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit.
“Given that the issue is already before the Ninth Circuit, the best thing to do is to wait for its decision,” the filing concluded. plow aheadRead Biden’s response
Hunter Biden’s lawyers once again pushed back against the special counsel, this time arguing against prosecutors’ insistence that he be forced to comply with a court order.
“Mr. Biden’s counsel twice requested a call to discuss the issue. Both times the Special Counsel refused, the last time stating only ‘in light of the position you’re taking we don’t think a call would accomplish anything,'” the defense said. “It is now clear that the prosecutors intended to file their motion and could easily have used Mr. Biden’s counsel’s request for a call to discuss the application, rather than invoke imaginary ‘extraordinary’ circumstances in seeking an ex parte application.”
Biden’s lawyers, maintaining that Weiss is “wrong” to say the tax case can continue during the interlocutory appeal, urged Scarsi to take the “prudent course” of waiting on the Ninth Circuit to rule, rather than siding with Weiss and pushing ahead.
“This Court has been divested of jurisdiction to determine the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction because that very question is before the Ninth Circuit,” the defense response said. “Nor does it make sense for this Court to wade into that thicket. The Special Counsel’s motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and pending before the Ninth Circuit. There is no point in reinitiating that briefing process again in this Court, particularly when either side could then appeal this Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit.
“Given that the issue already is before the Ninth Circuit, the prudent course is to wait for its decision,” the filing concluded.
Read Biden’s response here.