Judge Shoots Down Hunter Biden’s Request

A federal judge has rejected Hunter Biden’s attempt to dismiss his tax case, despite his arguments grounded on a decision in Donald Trump’s classified documents case.

At a Glance

A federal judge rejected Hunter Biden’s attempt to dismiss his indictment on federal tax charges.
U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi found no valid basis for reconsideration of the charges.
Biden’s attorneys cited Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion and a federal judge’s order in Trump’s case.
The judge noted neither is binding precedent.

Judge Deems Request “Untimely” and Without Merit

U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi turned down Hunter Biden’s request to have his federal tax charges dismissed. Biden’s defense cited the recent dismissal of a classified documents case against Donald Trump as part of their argument. Scarsi ruled that Biden’s motion was “untimely” and lacked any substantial grounds for reconsideration, emphasizing that the charges against Biden preceded the appointment of David Weiss as special counsel.

Hunter Biden’s team attempted to use Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion and a federal judge’s ruling in Trump’s case to support their motion. Trump ultimately succeeded in having his classified documents case thrown out because the judge argued special counsel Jack Smith was appointed to the case illegally by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Hunter Biden attempted to argue that this precedent should be followed with the special counsel appointed to his own case.

However, Judge Scarsi noted that neither legal opinion served as binding precedent. Scarsi highlighted that Biden’s lawyers were essentially seeking reconsideration of issues already decided in February, thus providing no new basis for the court to revisit its previous ruling on dismissing the charges.

Judge rejects Hunter Biden’s bid to use Trump ruling to get his federal tax case dismissedhttps://t.co/aOVHYkxuHB pic.twitter.com/1qKtBt3Md3

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) August 20, 2024

No Grounds for Reconsideration

Judge Scarsi addressed the core of Biden’s dismissal request in his ruling. “As he concedes in his notice of the motion, Mr. Biden plainly seeks reconsideration of issues already decided upon his February motion,” said Scarsi. “The Court declines to reach the merits of the motion because there is no valid basis for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Mr. Biden’s motion to dismiss the indictment.”

Additional points of contention cited by Judge Scarsi included the timing of Biden’s filing and the accuracy of the statements made within it. The judge indicated that false information was present in the defense’s court documents. Though Hunter Biden’s legal team acknowledged the inaccuracies in a subsequent filing, claiming they “never tried to mislead” the court, Scarsi nonetheless emphasized the importance of honesty from legal counsel. Consequently, he declined to impose sanctions but issued a stern warning on the necessity for candor.

Looking Ahead: The Trial

Hunter Biden’s trial is set to begin next month in California. He faces nine charges related to failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes over three years. Attorney Kevin Morris settled the back taxes and penalties for Biden; however, Biden has pleaded not guilty to all charges. This marks his second criminal trial in several months, following a prior conviction on three firearm-related charges in Delaware.

Biden’s legal team remains optimistic despite this setback, though they will need to prepare robust arguments to counter the federal tax charges. Additionally, a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday to discuss the admissible evidence for the trial. As developments continue to unfold, the forthcoming trial will undoubtedly attract significant public and media attention.

Conclusion

The rejection of Hunter Biden’s motion to dismiss his tax case underscores the court’s unwillingness to entertain reconsideration of previously decided issues without valid justification. Judge Scarsi’s ruling reflects a broader caution towards ensuring the integrity and timeliness of legal motions.