Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, stated that Hunter Biden had no valid defense against federal gun charges and should have pleaded guilty, Tampa Free Press reported.
Hunter Biden is currently facing a federal trial concerning three felony gun charges related to false declarations during a .38-caliber revolver acquisition amidst allegations of concurrent drug addiction.
His trial began earnestly with jury selection on Monday. Charged on three felony counts after purchasing a .38-caliber revolver, Hunter Biden entered a plea of not guilty in October at his arraignment.
According to Jonathan Turley, professor of law at George Washington University, the defense crafted by Hunter Biden's lawyers appears flimsy and seems to lean heavily towards a strategy of jury nullification.
In an interview on Fox News, Turley expressed his skepticism towards the defensibility of Hunter Biden's case. He argued that the text messages indicating drug use around the time of the purchase might severely undercut the defense's arguments in court.
Jonathan Turley elaborated on the potential implications of pleading guilty versus facing trial. He opined that a guilty plea could have potentially spared Hunter Biden harsher public scrutiny and possibly jail time.
"Do you think 12 people are going to say that a third person checked these boxes for Hunter Biden or that he had the world’s smallest window of sobriety that can be reduced to a few hours?" Turley questioned the feasibility of such claims, reaching a favorable consensus among jurors.
Jonathan Turley remarked, "There is no defense that I can see here. It's akin to getting yourself locked in a bank vault and saying, 'I got lost on my way to the restroom.'" He critically assessed the likelihood of success of the nullification strategy given the evident discrepancies in Hunter Biden's gun purchase testimony.
Turley repeatedly noted the possible influence of the locale and familial presence at the trial.
He postulated that the jury in Hunter Biden’s hometown of Wilmington might be swayed by local sympathies or the high-profile presence of President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden.
"I don’t have any problem with the father weighing in here for his son. Having Jill Biden in the court, however, is a reminder to the Jury that this is a Biden town and this is a Biden case," said Jonathan Turley, expressing a nuanced view on the involvement of Hunter’s parents in the proceedings.
Turley also speculated that Hunter Biden’s defense might argue that another person was responsible for completing the necessary paperwork during the firearm purchase or that Biden experienced brief periods of sobriety adequate for making lawful decisions. Yet, he vigorously questioned the plausibility of these arguments.
In conclusion, the trial of Hunter Biden on gun charges illuminates a complex intersection of legal defense, public perception, and personal tragedy. Turley's insights suggest a tough road ahead for Biden's defense, particularly in the face of damning textual evidence and a potentially sympathetic hometown jury. As the trial unfolds, the strategies employed and their reception will undoubtedly be scrutinized.
