Hunter Biden’s defense failed to prove that the District Court’s orders are appealable in a decision handed by the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday.
The verdict meant that the trial set for June would proceed as scheduled.
Judge Maryellen Noreika, who presides the case, noted in a court filing: “This appeal is DISMISSED because the defendant has not shown the District Court’s orders are appealable before final judgment.”
Hunter Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, pleads to the court to delay the hearing because they are not ready.
A reason unacceptable to the court.
Apparently, Hunter finds it difficult to find anyone willing to testify in support of him, especially on issues related to drug addiction.
Lowell lamented, “We have not been delaying, we have not been tardy. We have been trying.”
“People are reluctant to become involved in this case,” he added.
A dilemma that might be somehow true, especially if the person they are going to defend is a drug addict and tax evader.
Noreika said the proceedings cannot afford any more delays.
In October 2023, Biden’s son was charged for lying on a federal form in 2018 when he purchased a gun in Delaware.
Hunter, in a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives form, answered that he did not use any illegal substance. The form explicitly wrote that anyone who answered yes to the drug question would not be allowed to purchase or receive a gun, and lying about it could face criminal repercussions.
During that period, Hunter admitted that he was a regular user of addictive substances.
If found guilty, he could be imprisoned for decades.
One of the motions filed by Biden was related to the diversion agreement between Hunter and special counsel David Weiss.
According to the defense team, Weiss is fleeing from the prior agreement arranged on his probation-only deal last July.
“Non-prosecution agreements do not implicate a right not to be tried or any other right that can be collaterally appealed,” the appellate court wrote.
Another motion cited by the first son was that he was “vindictively and selectively prosecuted” and violated “separation-of-powers principles because it was improperly motivated by the Legislative Branch and political pressure.”
However, the court highlighted, “[c]riminal defendants raising those challenges cannot appeal before final judgment,” without discussing the merits.
The third motion was related to the appointment of Weiss as special counsel, arguing that such a move violated federal regulations.
“[T]he defendant has not shown the order has a ‘serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence’ and can be ‘effect[ually] challenged only by immediate appeal,’” the judges clapped back.
