Hunter Biden refuses to attend felony gun arraignment in person.

Hunter Biden Seeks Virtual ​Arraignment for Felony Gun Charges

President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, is ​fighting ‍against ⁤returning ⁣to Delaware for a hearing on⁤ his felony gun ​charges. U.S. District Judge Christopher Burke revealed that Hunter Biden wants his initial appearance ‌on the indictment to be ​held via video conference. However, the government opposes this request,​ leading to a disagreement between the parties involved.

“Defendant‍ seeks ⁢to have the initial appearance on the Indictment in⁣ this matter⁢ held via video ⁣conference,” U.S.​ District Judge Christopher Burke wrote in a docket entry⁣ Monday, noting the “Government opposes that request.”

In response to the ‍disagreement, Judge⁤ Burke issued an oral order, instructing Hunter Biden’s attorneys to provide a response by ⁢Tuesday,‍ explaining why he should be allowed to appear virtually for his arraignment. Prosecutors were also given until‍ Wednesday to file their response. This means that Judge Burke’s decision on the matter could be made as early as this week.

It is‌ worth​ noting ‌that while Judge ‌Burke is‍ presiding over the arraignment, U.S. District Judge Maryellen ​Noreika is handling the case. Judge Noreika previously rejected a proposed plea agreement between ​Hunter Biden and U.S. Attorney ⁣David Weiss due to disagreements over the terms.

Constitutional attorney Andrew Lieb of Lieb at Law commented on Hunter Biden’s request, stating‌ that it is not surprising given that he ⁣currently resides ⁣in California.⁤ Lieb explained that the judge will review ⁤the written responses and make a decision, which could potentially require Hunter Biden to appear ⁣in person.

“The ⁤judge is saying, ‘Write papers and ‌I’ll make a decision.’ The judge may say ‌they ‍have to ⁢come in,” Lieb said, adding Burke may‍ choose the inverse.

This filing comes at a time when Hunter Biden may face additional⁣ indictments in Washington, D.C., or California. Prosecutors ⁣have hinted⁤ that further ⁢charges ⁤related to his unpaid taxes from 2017 ‍and 2018 may‍ resurface.

Initially, Hunter Biden was expected to plead ⁤guilty to two misdemeanor tax ⁣charges and receive a pretrial diversion agreement ⁢for the ⁢felony gun⁢ charge. However, ‌the plea deal fell apart ‍when his attorneys admitted in court ⁤that they believed it would prevent ‍him ⁣from facing future charges resulting from a five-year investigation. This disagreement among prosecutors led to the collapse of the proposed agreement.

Last week, Hunter Biden⁣ became the first son of a sitting president⁣ to⁤ face ⁢federal ⁣felony charges.

It is worth mentioning that earlier this year, former President Donald Trump became the first ‍former president to face federal criminal charges. He is currently ⁢preparing to fight two federal and two⁢ state cases ahead of the 2024 election. Trump⁣ has appeared for three out of four ⁤arraignments, attending in person for those in New ‍York and Miami, and not ‍requesting a virtual appearance in Washington, D.C. In Fulton‍ County, Georgia, where Trump ⁢is charged, waived arraignments are common.

The Washington Examiner⁤ reached out to an attorney representing Hunter ⁣Biden for comment.

What factors will Judge Burke consider when deciding whether to grant Hunter Biden’s request for⁣ a‌ virtual arraignment?

R Biden and⁢ the government in December 2021. The plea agreement involved charges related to taxes and false statements on a federal firearms ⁢form, but Judge Noreika‌ rejected it, stating that she wanted more ⁢information before considering a plea‌ deal.

The current dispute over Hunter Biden’s virtual arraignment comes after a grand jury in Delaware returned an indictment against ⁣him on charges of‍ falsely stating on a​ federal firearms form that⁤ he was not addicted‌ to drugs. The indictment⁤ also includes charges of possession of ​a firearm‍ by an unlawful user of controlled‍ substances.

Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has necessitated‌ the use of virtual proceedings to mitigate health risks, it is not⁢ uncommon for ⁣defendants to request virtual appearances in court. However, the decision ultimately lies with the⁢ judge presiding over the case, ‍who must consider the arguments​ put forth by both the defense and the prosecution.

In his ⁢request for a virtual arraignment, Hunter Biden’s attorneys may argue that it would be more efficient and convenient for their client, ⁤as he‍ would not have ⁤to travel to Delaware for ‍the‍ hearing. They ⁣may also assert that a virtual appearance would pose no harm to the integrity of the proceedings and would not hinder the administration of justice.

On the other hand, the ⁢government may oppose the request, arguing that an in-person arraignment is ‍necessary to ensure the seriousness​ of the‌ charges and to maintain public trust in the judicial system. They ‌may also contend that a virtual appearance could potentially undermine the defendant’s constitutional rights‍ or the ability to fully assess his demeanor.

Judge Burke’s ⁣decision on the matter will take into account ⁣these arguments, as well⁢ as any relevant legal precedents and‌ guidelines. The outcome of⁣ this dispute will determine whether Hunter Biden will be required to appear in person for his arraignment or if he​ will be allowed to participate via video‌ conference.

It is important to note that Hunter Biden’s legal issues have been a subject of political ⁣controversy and have received significant media attention. As the son of the President ⁢of the United States, any‌ legal proceedings involving him naturally ⁤attract ⁣scrutiny‍ and public‍ interest.

Regardless of the outcome of⁢ this specific dispute, Hunter Biden’s ‌felony gun charges will continue ⁣to be‍ litigated in court. The arraignment is merely the first step in the​ legal ‌process,‍ and the⁣ case will proceed according to the established ‍rules and procedures.

Both sides will have the opportunity to present ​their arguments,‌ and⁢ the court will ultimately determine‍ the outcome based on the evidence and‍ the applicable laws.⁣ It is essential that‍ the process ‍be fair and impartial, ‍ensuring justice is ⁤served‍ for all parties involved.

As this case unfolds, it is crucial to remember ​that the legal system operates independently of ⁣political affiliations or familial connections. The presumption of innocence applies to all‍ defendants, including Hunter Biden, and it is the court’s responsibility‌ to weigh the evidence and make impartial ​decisions based on the⁤ law.

The outcome​ of ⁤this dispute over the virtual arraignment will ⁣shed light on how the court will handle future proceedings in the case. The decision ‌will demonstrate​ whether virtual proceedings will become more prevalent and ⁣acceptable, even after the pandemic subsides.

In the meantime, the attention surrounding Hunter Biden’s legal troubles serves as a reminder that no one is above the ⁢law, regardless of their ⁣familial ⁤connections‌ or ⁣political stature.‍ The⁤ judicial system’s ability to impartially adjudicate cases, irrespective of outside pressures, is vital to maintaining the rule of law and preserving public ⁣confidence in our ⁤institutions.