mab22 Posted June 4, 2024 at 05:31 PM Share Posted June 4, 2024 at 05:31 PM Is this being tracked in the Judicial section? There are bound to be all sorts of interesting filings and motions, jury manipulation, prosecutor manipulations. Certainly hope the "2A Community" will be filing amici on behalf of the prosecution. I wonder if MDA will support this or not, don't want to interrupt that flow of funds. From what was reported the prosecuting attorney and hunter ran into each other in the hallway and the prosecutor got out of his way, signaling we all know how this goes and who's really in charge of this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted June 4, 2024 at 05:52 PM Share Posted June 4, 2024 at 05:52 PM On 6/4/2024 at 12:31 PM, mab22 said: Is this being tracked in the Judicial section? There are bound to be all sorts of interesting filings and motions, jury manipulation, prosecutor manipulations. Certainly hope the "2A Community" will be filing amici on behalf of the prosecution. I wonder if MDA will support this or not, don't want to interrupt that flow of funds. From what was reported the prosecuting attorney and hunter ran into each other in the hallway and the prosecutor got out of his way, signaling we all know how this goes and who's really in charge of this case. We have two tiers. Shouldn't surprise anyone.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted June 4, 2024 at 07:26 PM Author Share Posted June 4, 2024 at 07:26 PM (edited) On 6/4/2024 at 12:31 PM, mab22 said: Is this being tracked in the Judicial section? There are bound to be all sorts of interesting filings and motions, jury manipulation, prosecutor manipulations. Certainly hope the "2A Community" will be filing amici on behalf of the prosecution. I wonder if MDA will support this or not, don't want to interrupt that flow of funds. From what was reported the prosecuting attorney and hunter ran into each other in the hallway and the prosecutor got out of his way, signaling we all know how this goes and who's really in charge of this case. I don't think it is yet. I put this in National Politics because it was mostly a a political question initially. If gets to the point that we're seeing interesting briefs or amici, someone can start a topic in the Judicial forum for those. Edited June 4, 2024 at 08:15 PM by mauserme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yurimodin Posted June 4, 2024 at 08:28 PM Share Posted June 4, 2024 at 08:28 PM Sorry but I want to root for Hunter on this one since the 4473 question is BS through the lens of Bruen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted June 4, 2024 at 10:07 PM Share Posted June 4, 2024 at 10:07 PM On 6/4/2024 at 3:28 PM, yurimodin said: Sorry but I want to root for Hunter on this one since the 4473 question is BS through the lens of Bruen. We should all be pulling for Hunter. Cheers, Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illinois Sucks Posted June 5, 2024 at 12:45 AM Share Posted June 5, 2024 at 12:45 AM On 6/4/2024 at 5:07 PM, soundguy said: We should all be pulling for Hunter. Cheers, Tim We should all be pulling for the 2nd Amendment. We should all be hoping that karma strikes Hunter harder than he hits a crack pipe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted June 5, 2024 at 01:29 AM Share Posted June 5, 2024 at 01:29 AM On 6/4/2024 at 7:45 PM, Illinois Sucks said: We should all be pulling for the 2nd Amendment. We should all be hoping that karma strikes Hunter harder than he hits a crack pipe! If Hunter Biden is convicted on this Second Amendment related charge, we all suffer. It sets us back. While pulling for 2A, we need to pull for Hunter and all of those who are similarly burdened. Hunter is the 2A right now. Cheers, Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illinois Sucks Posted June 5, 2024 at 02:09 AM Share Posted June 5, 2024 at 02:09 AM On 6/4/2024 at 8:29 PM, soundguy said: If Hunter Biden is convicted on this Second Amendment related charge, we all suffer. It sets us back. While pulling for 2A, we need to pull for Hunter and all of those who are similarly burdened. Hunter is the 2A right now. Cheers, Tim He lied on a federal form to buy a gun illegally. Throw the book at him. Nothing will change for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted June 5, 2024 at 02:25 AM Share Posted June 5, 2024 at 02:25 AM If Hunter is convicted and he appeals on 2A/Bruen grounds, then it becomes a 2A case. However, there are several cases farther along than his in this respect. If he's acquitted, then it's not a 2A case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted June 5, 2024 at 12:53 PM Share Posted June 5, 2024 at 12:53 PM Never thought I'd read that a self admitted crackhead could be considered a current face of the 2A. Couldn't we have at least used a freak show from ANTIFA or even a crossdresser? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted June 5, 2024 at 01:33 PM Share Posted June 5, 2024 at 01:33 PM Gun rights are the rights for all, even our political foes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tip Posted June 5, 2024 at 01:33 PM Share Posted June 5, 2024 at 01:33 PM On 6/4/2024 at 5:07 PM, soundguy said: We should all be pulling for Hunter. Cheers, Tim WHY? This is a simple case of perjury by an admittedly addicted crack head. Why should we pull for the crackhead? Perhaps if Biden had filed suit claiming the law was unconstitutional there might be some merit to “pulling” for him, he didn’t and he’s not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted June 5, 2024 at 02:26 PM Share Posted June 5, 2024 at 02:26 PM (edited) On 6/5/2024 at 8:33 AM, Tip said: WHY? This is a simple case of perjury by an admittedly addicted crack head. Why should we pull for the crackhead? Perhaps if Biden had filed suit claiming the law was unconstitutional there might be some merit to “pulling” for him, he didn’t and he’s not. - Part of his defense is "the condition did not exist" when he filled out the form. - The gun was never used or even loaded in the 11 days he possessed it. - Under Bruen the drug prohibition is or may be unconstitutional. And... On 6/5/2024 at 8:33 AM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said: Gun rights are the rights for all, even our political foes. We can't have our rights if we deny them to our political foes. Cheers, Tim Edited June 5, 2024 at 02:28 PM by soundguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richp Posted June 5, 2024 at 02:27 PM Share Posted June 5, 2024 at 02:27 PM (edited) On appeal, should he be convicted, they will dig into whether or not there were any laws in the US restricting drug users from owning firearms two centuries ago. That's the essence of the Bruen case. If there were no such laws, then the argument will be you can't charge him for not truthfully complying with an illegal requirement. It will be interesting to see whether the final outcome of this case has any far-reaching effect for us Edited June 5, 2024 at 02:27 PM by richp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted June 5, 2024 at 02:50 PM Share Posted June 5, 2024 at 02:50 PM He'll get off scot free in the end. Change his name and the outcome is different. Just like the case last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted June 5, 2024 at 04:25 PM Share Posted June 5, 2024 at 04:25 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted June 5, 2024 at 10:21 PM Share Posted June 5, 2024 at 10:21 PM On June 5, 2024 at 09:27 AM CDT, richp said:→On appeal, should he be convicted, they will dig into whether or not there were any laws in the US restricting drug users from owning firearms two centuries ago. That's the essence of the Bruen case. If there were no such laws, then the argument will be you can't charge him for not truthfully complying with an illegal requirement. ... The only laws that existed historically were related to possession while intoxicated. Even the town drunk could possess firearms during the times he was sober. There were no federal laws prohibiting the recreational use of any substance (i.e., there was pretty much no such thing as a controlled substance) until the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. (There were various state laws beginning around 1910, though.) The ban on possession by addicts is part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The usual argument for why (unconvicted) addicts can be prohibited is that they have no control over their addiction, so they could become intoxicated at any moment, and they would be unlikely to store their firearms safely in preparation for their intoxication. (Disclaimer: I am not advocating, just explaining.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted June 6, 2024 at 04:59 PM Share Posted June 6, 2024 at 04:59 PM Another angle? Jury nullification? So much for the “constitutional arguments” you were hoping and rooting for. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hunter-biden-pursuing-jury-nullification-strategy Quote There may also be another possible strategy in play: jury nullification. Unlike Donald Trump in Manhattan, Delaware is Biden country. The chance that he will get strong supporters of his father on the jury is an almost statistical certainty. In 2020, Joe Biden received roughly 60 percent of the vote over Donald Trump in the state. Having first lady Jill Biden, who is extremely popular, at the trial will only reinforce the connection. In addition to a favorable jury pool, Biden may be hoping that testimony on his travails with drugs will prompt one or more jurors to ignore the law and vote to acquit. Notably, virtually all of the selected jurors have said that they know of someone who has struggled with drugs. Indeed, Judge Noreika already appears to suspect such a strategy. Noreika rejected the effort of the defense to introduce an altered version of the federal firearms form created by the gun store employees. They argue that the alteration showed a political bias on the part of the prosecutors. The court found the document “irrelevant” and chastised the defense team for pursuing “conspiratorial” theories and an effort to confuse or mislead the jury. She noted that the use of the altered form would be “unduly prejudicial and invites (jury) nullification.” Jury nullification arguments have long been banned or discouraged in many courtrooms. Nevertheless, jury nullification has its advocates. For example, Georgetown Law Professor Paul Butler has called for Black jurors to refuse to convict Black defendants of drug crimes. Butler has said that “my goal is the subversion of the present criminal justice system.” Hunter Biden is obviously not the primary concern of Professor Butler in the impact of drug prosecutions on the Black community. However, he has also argued that “jury nullification is just part of an arsenal of tools to end the failed “war on drugs.” Biden’s case has all of the characteristics of a nullification defense. Even if he cannot secure acquittal, the combination of political and social elements at play in Delaware could produce a hung jury. Trying a Biden in Delaware is a challenge for any prosecutor, even without the potential sympathies for a reformed drug addict. With the first lady sitting behind him, the family ties will be on full display. There is an understandable parental desire to show emotional support for Hunter, but prosecutors cannot be thrilled by the potential effect on jurors in the pro-Biden state. Wilmington is President Biden’s hometown, where he still maintains a family residence. In Wilmington itself in 2020, Biden received 26,698 votes to Trump’s 3,580. The hope is that, as President Biden once said, “Delaware is about getting everyone in the room, no matter how tough the problem, no matter how big the disagreement, and staying in the room until we figure it out.” Most everyone is in the courtroom and the hope is that at least some of these jurors will “figure it out” in their favor. Perhaps Hunter put it best: “The single best thing is, family comes first. Over everything. I can’t think of anything that has been more pervasive and played a larger part in my life than that simple lesson.” The defense may be hoping that, for some jurors, “family [will] come first … over everything,” particularly over the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock43 Posted June 6, 2024 at 10:29 PM Share Posted June 6, 2024 at 10:29 PM On 6/6/2024 at 11:59 AM, mab22 said: Judge Noreika already appears to suspect such a strategy. Noreika rejected the effort of the defense to introduce an altered version of the federal firearms form created by the gun store employees. They argue that the alteration showed a political bias on the part of the prosecutors. The court found the document “irrelevant” and chastised the defense team for pursuing “conspiratorial” theories and an effort to confuse or mislead the jury. what is this altered form? Gun store employees don’t modify or create “federal firearms forms”. I googled and all I could find was the original article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted June 7, 2024 at 12:12 AM Share Posted June 7, 2024 at 12:12 AM (edited) On June 6, 2024 at 05:29 PM CDT, Glock43 said:→what is this altered form? ... It appears to be a pretrial evidentiary decision from a motion in limine on the day before the trial started. Emptywheel is a blog site, but it links to the judge's evidentiary order on CourtListener. I didn't find any major media coverage. Emptywheel said:→Judge Maryellen Noreika has ruled that Hunter Biden cannot present evidence that, to cover up that StarQuest gun shop sold Hunter Biden a gun without requiring him to show an ID with his address on it, the shop owner and one of its employees falsely claimed they had seen such ID three years after the fact on the physical ATF form. They doctored the form. More importantly, the gun shop owner testified that he did so because Hunter Biden listed a celebrity address (his father's), and also because he wanted to get Joe Biden's kid out of his store as quick as possible. By his own testimony, the gun shop owner only belatedly complied with the required record-keeping because of who Hunter Biden is. ... In other words, StarQuest (the gun shop) did not properly verify Hunter's address in 2018. In 2021, when the 4473 was about to become public as evidence, they altered the 4473 to show that they had verified his address in 2018. The 4473 from 2018 is what is in evidence now. The defense wanted to introduce the 2021 "annotated" version to show that StarQuest had altered the 4473 and raise a doubt whether StarQuest had altered anything on the 2018 form. (Kind of "If they're lying now, how do we know they weren't lying then?") The judge ruled that StarQuest attempting to conceal in 2021 that it didn't follow proper procedure in 2018 doesn't affect what Hunter did or didn't do in 2018. I'd bet that the defense will raise this decision as an issue of reversible error in its eventual appeal. Edited June 7, 2024 at 12:13 AM by Euler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted June 7, 2024 at 01:37 AM Share Posted June 7, 2024 at 01:37 AM On 6/6/2024 at 7:12 PM, Euler said: It appears to be a pretrial evidentiary decision from a motion in limine on the day before the trial started. Emptywheel is a blog site, but it links to the judge's evidentiary order on CourtListener. I didn't find any major media coverage. In other words, StarQuest (the gun shop) did not properly verify Hunter's address in 2018. In 2021, when the 4473 was about to become public as evidence, they altered the 4473 to show that they had verified his address in 2018. The 4473 from 2018 is what is in evidence now. The defense wanted to introduce the 2021 "annotated" version to show that StarQuest had altered the 4473 and raise a doubt whether StarQuest had altered anything on the 2018 form. (Kind of "If they're lying now, how do we know they weren't lying then?") The judge ruled that StarQuest attempting to conceal in 2021 that it didn't follow proper procedure in 2018 doesn't affect what Hunter did or didn't do in 2018. I'd bet that the defense will raise this decision as an issue of reversible error in its eventual appeal. Was this presented to the Jury, or did the Jury hear the defense bring this up and judges ruling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted June 7, 2024 at 01:47 AM Share Posted June 7, 2024 at 01:47 AM On June 6, 2024 at 08:37 PM CDT, mab22 said:→Was this presented to the Jury, or did the Jury hear the defense bring this up and judges ruling? The evidence was excluded before trial. That means the jury will never see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted June 10, 2024 at 08:29 PM Share Posted June 10, 2024 at 08:29 PM Sounds like the jury has it now and is deliberating. Anyone catch the 2A constitutional arguments used in his defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted June 10, 2024 at 10:15 PM Share Posted June 10, 2024 at 10:15 PM Based on the news coverage that I've seen, he didn't present any 2A defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted June 11, 2024 at 01:14 AM Share Posted June 11, 2024 at 01:14 AM On 6/10/2024 at 5:15 PM, Euler said: Based on the news coverage that I've seen, he didn't present any 2A defense. This makes me curious, I would have expected that there be at least a touching on the 2A defense to preserve that defense upon appeal if needed. I can't help but wonder if he was told to take one for the team as to not risk furthering gun rights potentially being tied to his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted June 11, 2024 at 01:54 AM Share Posted June 11, 2024 at 01:54 AM Hunter is charged with 3 things.Lying on a federal form kept by the FFL, saying he was not an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substanceLying on the 4473 (It's a separate charge, even if it seems like the same thing.)Being an unlawful user or addict in possession of a firearm His defense did make a pretrial motion to have the case dismissed on 2A grounds. That should be enough to appeal the possession charge. Appealing the charges for lying could be harder. Maybe "if not for the unconstitutional prohibition, the question would not have been asked" could work. Meanwhile, US v Daniels and Morales-Lopez v US are cases of drug-user-in-possession that are already petitioned to the Supreme Court, although the petitions have not yet been granted (and may not be ultimately). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted June 11, 2024 at 02:53 AM Share Posted June 11, 2024 at 02:53 AM I think they are betting on the jury letting him off, no messy 2A issues, no pardon from the dementia “who” to muddy the election. Just a Jury of his peers all sobbing for the poor poor Hunter….. it’s just a tragic story of an addict (insert sobbing) (start screaming poor poor Hunter) 😭 Maybe if his grandpa wasn’t shot down by pigme cannibals, and then eaten alive, while flying in the arctic to study global cooling he would have turned out better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted June 11, 2024 at 03:11 AM Share Posted June 11, 2024 at 03:11 AM The defense case was basically two things: the FFL was the real liar, and Hunter is just a sad addict who needs help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RECarry Posted June 11, 2024 at 12:03 PM Share Posted June 11, 2024 at 12:03 PM Waiting for the "Hasn't the Biden family suffered enough?" defense to protect The Big Guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted June 11, 2024 at 12:25 PM Share Posted June 11, 2024 at 12:25 PM On 6/10/2024 at 10:11 PM, Euler said: The defense case was basically two things: the FFL was the real liar, and Hunter is just a sad addict who needs help. Not quite right and not even very close... Quote Closing Arguments: Defense Lead defense lawyer Abbe Lowell said the prosecution’s evidence was “so lacking.” He said the prosecution tried to get the jury to focus on Biden’s struggle with drugs prior to and after the gun purchase but provided no evidence he was using drugs when he purchased the gun. He argued that Biden didn’t lie when he filled out the gun purchase forms because he was not using drugs at the time and he asked the jury to return a not guilty verdict. A Job for the Jury District Judge Maryellen Noreika told the jury that they only needed to determine whether Biden was an addict or used drugs recently at the time he filled out a federal firearms application claiming to be drug-free. Biden faces a maximum of 25 years in prison if convicted on all counts, though sentences are typically shorter than the maximum, according to the Department of Justice. Noreika – who was nominated by Trump – will determine Biden’s sentence if he is convicted. Cheers, Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now