Hunter Biden’s lawyers argue that he simply mixed up legal terminology when filing papers to dismiss tax evasion charges, and that he shouldn’t lose his case over a single word.
This week, the lawyers were forced to explain their blunder after a California judge rebuked them and threatened sanctions as a result.
Federal Judge Mark Scarci in California on Wednesday threatened to fine the lawyers representing President Biden’s son for making multiple intentional false statements in court documents seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed.
Specifically, Hunter’s side argued that the 54-year-old defendant was not charged until Special Counsel David Weiss was appointed to that special role earlier this month.
But in fact, Weiss had previously filed charges against Hunter as the federal prosecutor in Delaware.
The charges were filed while Weiss was serving as U.S. attorney and were part of a plea agreement in which Hunter was expected to plead guilty.
The plea deal later fell apart, and Weiss refiled the charges as special prosecutor.
Hunter’s lawyers, in their response to Scarce’s accusations on Sunday, argued that he simply misspoke, citing the Washington Post report first in their written arguments, rather than other media articles.
They said they didn’t mean that Weiss, as U.S. attorney, hasn’t filed “charges” against the defendants, but rather that they meant “indictments.”
The lawyers argued that the biggest offence was “inappropriate” use of the term.
They said they wanted to keep the motion papers as they were, except for swapping out the language.
“The defense made no demonstrably false statements or intended to mislead the court,” the lawyers wrote.
“Imposing sanctions on defense counsel for one word so soon in the pretrial and trial proceedings would have the improper effect of chilling Mr. Biden’s vigorous defense and discouraging the defense from raising pertinent issues,” their filing said.
Hunter is accused of failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes.
But his lawyers are seeking to have the charges dismissed based on a recent ruling in former President Donald Trump’s Florida classified documents case.
A federal court in Florida ruled that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith to the case was unconstitutional because it was made by Attorney General Merrick Garland instead of through Congress. Smith is appealing the decision.
Meanwhile, Hunter’s campaign is seeking to have the previous charges against Weiss dismissed based on the same ruling.
But in his initial rebuttal last week, Scarce said Hunter’s lawyers were ignoring a key difference between the two cases: Weiss was appointed as a federal prosecutor before being elevated to special counsel, while Smith in the Trump case was not.
A California judge has yet to make a final ruling on the issue or whether the lawyers should be fined for negligence.
Weiss also prosecuted Hunter in Delaware for illegally possessing a gun while under the influence of drugs. Hunter was convicted at trial earlier this summer, but Weiss is seeking to overturn that conviction based on the same argument that he should not have been involved in that case.
A spokesman for Weiss’s office declined to comment.
Hunter’s lawyer did not respond to The Washington Post’s request for comment on Monday.
