Lawyers for Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, filed a request on Monday for a new trial, asserting that the previous trial proceeded without formal authorization from a federal appeals court. This legal move follows Hunter Biden’s conviction on charges related to a gun purchase.
In the Monday court filing, Biden’s legal team argued that the trial court did not receive a formal green light from the federal appeals court to proceed with the trial after dismissing his appeals. They claim this procedural oversight entitles Biden to a new trial.
The case centers on Hunter Biden’s purchase of a revolver in October 2018. A jury in Wilmington, Delaware, found Biden guilty of lying on the background screening form required for the gun purchase and of illegally possessing the firearm for two weeks thereafter. Biden had argued that the law under which he was charged was unconstitutionally vague and infringed upon his Second Amendment rights. However, these arguments were unsuccessful in court.
Biden has consistently denied any wrongdoing. Following the conviction, his lawyers immediately announced plans to appeal. They now contend that the trial was premature, as it moved forward without the necessary formal directive from the federal appeals court, which had previously dismissed Biden’s appeals.
This legal development is the latest in a series of courtroom battles for Hunter Biden, who has faced intense scrutiny and legal challenges over various matters. His legal team remains steadfast in their efforts to overturn the recent conviction, emphasizing procedural errors and constitutional concerns.
The outcome of this request for a new trial could have significant implications for both Hunter Biden and the broader legal interpretations of the laws in question. As the case progresses, it continues to attract widespread public and media attention, given Hunter Biden’s high-profile status as the president’s son.
Hunter Biden’s legal team is expected to vigorously pursue the appeal process, seeking to address what they see as fundamental issues with how the trial was conducted. The courts will now have to decide whether these procedural arguments warrant a new trial, adding another layer of complexity to an already contentious case.
