Hunter Biden withdraws bid for new trial in gun case after feds blast him for ‘failure to read’ orders

First son Hunter Biden withdrew his attempt at a new trial Tuesday after federal prosecutors ripped him for “misunderstanding of appellate practice” and “failure to read” prior court orders.

The 54-year-old, who was convicted June 11 of three counts related to lying about his drug addiction to obtain a firearm, had filed his motion for a new trial June 24, claiming Delaware federal Judge Maryellen Noreika didn’t have jurisdiction over the trial because of pending rulings in his appeals case.


Hunter Biden has withdrawn his attempt at a new trial after federal prosecutors ripped him for "misunderstanding of appellate practice" and "failure to read" prior court orders.
Hunter Biden has withdrawn his attempt at a new trial after federal prosecutors ripped him for “misunderstanding of appellate practice” and “failure to read” prior court orders. Ken Cedeno/UPI/Shutterstock

Hunter Biden was convicted of three counts related to lying about his drug addiction to get a firearm, pictured here.
Hunter Biden was convicted of three counts related to lying about his drug addiction to get a firearm, pictured here. US District Court for the District of Delaware

However, prosecutors from special counsel David Weiss’ office pointed out in their Monday response that the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit Court of Appeals had already given Noreika the go-ahead to try the first son — a detail missed by Hunter and his lawyers.

“[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, later adding: “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.”

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Leave a Comment