A US federal judge in Delaware rejected a plea deal proposed for Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden. The hearing, presided over by US District Judge Maryellen Noreika, took an unexpected turn as the judge cited constitutionality concerns with the proposed plea agreement. As a result, Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to three charges, including tax and firearms offenses.
Initially intended as a procedural formality between federal prosecutors from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Hunter Biden’s legal counsel, the hearing quickly turned contentious when disagreements emerged about the agreement’s contents.
The central point of contention revolved around two agreements that had been negotiated between the parties. The first agreement involved a plea deal, wherein Hunter Biden would have pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges under 26 U.S.C. § 7203. These charges carry a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment, a $100,000 fine, and one year of supervised release, along with other requirements. The prosecution recommended probation as the sentence for Biden under the plea agreement. Furthermore, the agreement would have nullified the felony gun charge against Biden, provided he refrained from any further violations for the next two years.
See also: Hunter Biden to Plead Guilty in Tax Case
The second agreement, known as the diversion agreement, stipulated that federal prosecutors would not pursue additional criminal prosecution based on the evidence discovered during their investigation. However, it was clarified that Hunter Biden’s future conduct could still be the subject of future prosecutions.
BCG Attorney Search connects you with the best legal jobs in your area. Start your search today!
During the court proceedings, Hunter Biden’s legal counsel stated that they would not accept the proposed plea deal unless accompanied by the diversion agreement. However, DOJ prosecutors argued that the plea agreement explicitly stated that the diversion agreement was separate and independent from the plea. In the event that the diversion agreement was deemed invalid and unenforceable, Biden could potentially face further charges related to the investigation in addition to the tax charges he already pleaded to.
Following a brief recess to resolve the matter, it seemed that Biden would proceed with his plea, even if the diversion agreement was not deemed valid and enforceable. However, Judge Noreika raised concerns about the scope of the diversion agreement’s promise not to prosecute. This sparked yet another disagreement between the parties.
Federal prosecutors clarified that the diversion agreement only covered future prosecutions related to tax evasion for the years specified in the plea agreement (2014 through 2019) and the specific firearm involved in the initial firearms charge. Nevertheless, prosecutors asserted their ability to pursue future prosecutions under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, citing Hunter Biden’s dealings with foreign companies. This disagreement led a prosecutor to declare, “Then there is no deal.”
The Department of Justice continues its investigation into Hunter Biden’s activities, as evident from the statements made in court. Additionally, Republicans in the House of Representatives have launched their own separate investigation into Biden’s dealings.
As a result of Wednesday’s plea hearing, Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. The court has set another date at the end of August for further deliberations on the matter.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.