Hunter Biden is challenging his recent conviction on three felony gun counts, arguing that procedural errors and a Supreme Court decision should overturn or mandate a new trial.
ABC News reported that Biden's team contends that no mandate was issued before the trial and that his Second Amendment rights remain intact due to the absence of violent behavior. Nearly two weeks ago, Hunter Biden was convicted on three felony gun counts.
The convictions included two counts of making false statements on a federal form regarding his drug addiction status in October 2018 and one count of illegally obtaining a firearm while being addicted to drugs.
On Monday, attorneys for Hunter Biden filed court papers requesting a new trial. They argued that his "convictions should be vacated" because the trial commenced before a circuit court issued a mandate denying his appeal.
The defense cited the Supreme Court's recent decision in U.S. v. Rahimi as a basis for their motion for acquittal or a new trial.
The Rahimi decision, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld a federal ban on firearms for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders.
Roberts stated that an individual posing a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner could be banned from possessing firearms while the restraining order is in effect.
Biden's legal team argued that since Biden never acted violently or misused his gun, his Second Amendment rights should be protected.
They emphasized that the jury did not find Biden ever threatened anyone with a gun or used it dangerously in any context.
"Here, no mandate was issued during the trial or even now. Consequently, the conviction must be vacated," stated Biden's attorneys. They pointed out the procedural flaw in the timing of the mandate, which they believe invalidates the trial's outcome.
Biden's attorneys also questioned the legal timeframe for when a former drug addict can lawfully purchase a firearm. This aspect of the case could potentially lead to another appeal, as the legal boundaries remain unclear.
"Where is this line that separates not only what is legal from what is illegal, but where the exercise of a constitutionally protected right becomes a felony?" the attorneys asked.
They highlighted the uncertainty about when an individual who has previously used prohibited substances can legally possess a firearm.
In their arguments, Biden's attorneys stressed that the Second Amendment should safeguard Biden's rights due to the absence of any violent behavior associated with his gun possession. They challenged the court to clarify how a person can have fair notice of their legal status regarding firearm possession after drug use.
The defense's motion for a new trial or acquittal is grounded in both procedural errors and constitutional arguments. They maintain that the lack of a mandate from the circuit court before the trial commenced is a significant procedural oversight that warrants vacating the conviction.
Furthermore, they argued that the principles set forth in the Supreme Court's Rahimi decision support Biden's case. The defense contended that Biden did not pose any credible threat to public safety and therefore should not be deprived of his Second Amendment rights.
The legal team's strategy involves leveraging the recent Supreme Court ruling to argue for Biden's acquittal or a new trial. They believe that the court's decision in Rahimi, which addresses firearm possession under specific conditions, is pertinent to Biden's situation.
This case raises broader questions about the interpretation of Second Amendment rights and the legal definitions surrounding firearm possession by individuals with a history of drug addiction. Biden's legal team is pushing for clearer guidelines and fair notice for individuals in similar situations.
As the legal battle continues, the implications of the case could extend beyond Hunter Biden. The court's decisions may influence how Second Amendment rights are applied in cases involving former drug addicts and firearm possession.
In conclusion, Hunter Biden's recent conviction on three felony gun counts is being challenged by his legal team, who argue that procedural errors and a Supreme Court decision should mandate a new trial. They emphasize the absence of a mandate before the trial and cite the Rahimi decision in their defense. The case highlights significant constitutional questions and may set a precedent for future legal interpretations of Second Amendment rights.
