Attorneys for Hunter Biden went to court on July 18 asking for a dismissal of his criminal tax and gun cases citing a recent opinion by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
In the Trump case the legality of the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Trump was in question. In Biden’s case the argument was that the appointment of US attorney David Weiss as special counsel for the prosecution of the son of the President Joe Biden was unconstitutional.
Federal court Judge Aileen Cannon had earlier tossed out Smith’s prosecution of Trump over his retention of classified documents after leaving the White House. Cannon dismissed the indictment because the Special Counsel was unconstitutionally appointed.
The filings by Biden’s lawyers read, “Based on these new legal developments, Mr Biden moves to dismiss the indictment brought against him because the Special Counsel who initiated this prosecution was appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause as well.
They also cited Justice Thomas’ opinion which questioned the propriety of a special counsel appointment.
“The Attorney General relied upon the exact same authority to appoint the Special Counsel in both the Trump and Biden matters, and both appointments are invalid for the same reason,” said Biden’s lawyers.
Biden’s lawyers contend in their court filings that his gun convictions were a miscarriage of justice and it was “an unauthorized prosecution”. For the tax charges, Biden’s lawyers said that similar to Trump, the case should be dismissed.
Regarding the tax indictment, the lawyers wrote that the defect has been recognized and used to invalidate an indictment brought by the special counsel against former President Trump and therefore the equivalent result should be available to Hunter Biden.
Biden had been earlier found guilty of three charges in his gun trial. He also faces federal tax charges to which he pleaded not guilty and the matter is expected to go to trial in September.
Biden’s lawyers had raised similar arguments before unsuccessfully, they say there’s now good precedent to back their claim.