For the second time in a single day, Hunter Biden has altered his plea in the federal case involving nine tax charges, just ahead of the scheduled jury selection on Thursday. Earlier, the first son unexpectedly shifted his plea from “not guilty” to an Alford plea—a type of guilty plea where he acknowledges that the prosecution has sufficient evidence for conviction without admitting to wrongdoing, while accepting sentencing from the judge. Following opposition from prosecutors, Biden now plans to change his plea to a standard guilty plea this afternoon, according to CNN.
The charges stem from an indictment returned by a grand jury last year, which included three felony tax charges and six misdemeanor charges. Hunter Biden had previously entered a not guilty plea to these charges in January. The significant reversal occurred just before jury selection was about to start and followed a private meeting between Hunter Biden’s legal team, headed by lawyer Abbe Lowell, and Judge Mark Scarsi of the Central District of California on Thursday. Prosecutors, led by Special Counsel David Weiss, objected to Biden’s request for an Alford plea.
“I want to make something crystal clear–the United States oppose an Alford plea,” lead prosecutor Leo Wise said. “Hunter Biden is not innocent. Hunter Biden is guilty. He is not permitted to plead guilty on special terms.” The trial was set to bring some of the more salacious and embarrassing details of the first son’s “extravagant” lifestyle back to the forefront as prosecutors seek to show Hunter Biden’s state of mind as he spent wildly on pornography websites, strip clubs, and drugs while allegedly failing to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes.
In June, a jury convicted Hunter on charges related to his purchase and possession of a firearm while addicted to crack cocaine. Biden had falsely declared on a federal form that he was not using drugs when he attempted to buy the firearm. Initially, he was set to accept a plea deal that would have allowed him to avoid jail time, but the deal was ultimately rejected by a federal judge.
In May, Hunter withdrew his request for a new trial following strong criticism from federal prosecutors for his “misunderstanding of appellate practice” and “failure to read” prior court orders. The 54-year-old, convicted on June 11 of three counts related to falsely obtaining a firearm by lying about his drug addiction, sought a new trial on June 24. He argued that Delaware federal Judge Maryellen Noreika lacked jurisdiction over his trial due to pending appeals. However, prosecutors from Weiss’ office countered in their response that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia had already authorized Noreika to proceed with the trial, a key detail apparently overlooked by Hunter and his legal team, the New York Post reported.
“[W]hen trial began on June 3, the Third Circuit had already dismissed both of the defendant’s appeals with orders stamped ‘in Lieu of Mandate’ and denied his petition for rehearing,” wrote prosecutor Derek Hines in Monday’s filing, adding later: “While the defendant repeatedly insisted before trial that his appeals divested this Court of jurisdiction, this is the first time he has spun this laughable tale of the mystery of the missing mandates. But both dismissal orders are plainly stamped ‘Issued in Lieu of Mandate’ and provide no basis for this Court to reconsider its earlier rulings with respect to jurisdiction when non-appealable orders are appealed.”
Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.