Judge Sets Tentative June Trial Date in Delaware for Hunter Biden

Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden's son, arrives at the Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. House Office Building in Washington on Feb. 28, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika set a tentative trial date for Hunter Biden in Delaware between June 3 and June 10.

During a status conference call, David Hines, representing the government, estimated a trial would last around four days.

The Delaware court is where an earlier plea deal for Mr. Biden fell apart, and Mr. Biden faces gun-related felony charges for lying on a federal form about his addiction and possessing a gun illegally.

Mr. Biden is also facing trial in California on tax charges before U.S. District Court Judge Mark Scarsi.

Abbe Lowell, representing Mr. Biden, took the opportunity to urge Judge Noreika to review and rule on the several motions to dismiss filed in her court, noting that he believed the case should not proceed to trial at all.

Plea Deal

Mr. Biden was previously offered a diversion agreement in which he would plead guilty to the gun charges and get probation, and the tax charges would not be brought.

Last summer, Judge Noreika asked for clarification on the deal terms during Mr. Biden’s arraignment and not-guilty plea, and the parties seemed to disagree. She ordered the parties to confer and return with clarification, but prosecutors withdrew the plea deal.

Prosecutors then withdrew the tax charges from the Delaware court, signaling that they intended to bring them in another jurisdiction.

In January, Mr. Biden pleaded not guilty to tax charges in California, and Judge Scarsi set a tentative June 20 trial date.

Mr. Lowell has since filed four motions to dismiss in the Delaware court and filed similar and additional motions in California.

In both jurisdictions, he argued that the government had already entered into a diversion agreement and could not now bring charges. Prosecutors argue that the agreement was never signed and has been nullified.

Mr. Hines said he would not respond to the motions during a status conference.

Motion to Dismiss

During the status conference, Mr. Lowell asked the judge to look at the motion to dismiss based on the plea deal first, arguing that out of the hundreds of pretrial motions he’s ever filed, “I don’t think I’ve made one that is more merited.”

He noted that Mr. Biden faces trial in two jurisdictions across the country from each other, and if the judge agreed with the defense, that would remove the possibility. Mr. Lowell made similar arguments in California, but Judge Noreika was present at the hearing, during which the plea deal fell apart.

“A person shouldn’t have to go to trial if a person shouldn’t have to go to trial,” said Mr. Lowell.

Just this week, the defense additionally cited a new ruling wherein a federal court vacated a sentence and remanded a case based on the immunity conferred by a plea deal.

“In exchange for Mr. Biden giving up various rights—including his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent by agreeing to the Statement of Facts drafted by the prosecution and numerous restrictions on his liberty—the prosecution agreed to provide him immunity for any offense concerning his purchase of a firearm (among other offenses),” the defense had argued.

Several other motions Mr. Lowell submitted mirror arguments made in the cases of another high-profile defendant: former President Donald Trump.

Defense attorneys for both had filed a motion to dismiss based on selective and vindictive prosecution. While attorneys for President Trump argue that prosecutors waited until President Trump announced his reelection campaign to bring charges for things that happened years ago at the behest of the candidate’s primary rival, President Joe Biden, attorneys for Mr. Biden argue that prosecutors waited until an election was around the corner to bring charges for things that happened years ago at the behest of Republican officials.

Defense attorneys for both have also called into question the authority of the special counsels prosecuting the cases, arguing special counsels Jack Smith and David Weiss were not properly appointed.

Attorneys for Mr. Biden have additionally argued, in the gun case, that the charges are unconstitutional. Statutes that prohibit addicts from owning guns have already been challenged successfully in at least one state.